Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Adjournment (Summer)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Janet Anderson.]

Mr. Patrick Hall: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for calling me to make my maiden speech—the first speech by the first Member of Parliament for the new constituency of Bedford.
The constituency is really made up of two towns, Bedford and Kempston. Bedford is the county town of Bedfordshire, and has been a centre of regional importance since Saxon times, if not longer. Kempston has been a village for most of its history, with evidence of Roman settlement. Bedford grew rapidly during the 19th century, and later physically joined Kempston to create a single built-up area, but an area with two distinct identities for the two towns—to the extent that Kempston has its own elected town council and mayor.
Unfortunately, those separate identities are not reflected in the official name of the constituency, and I shall therefore seek to change that name, to reflect the two towns of which it consists.
Bedford and Kempston is a good place to live and work, and a good place to represent. I am honoured to have been given the chance to serve my home town—if I may call it that, having lived in Bedford for 18 years, and in the locality for 34 years.
However, if I am still to be regarded by some as a migrant to the area—there are some old Bedfordians who might take that view—I am in good company, because Bedford and Kempston were founded on inward migration. Migrants came first from the surrounding villages when industry and the railways arrived in the 19th century.
Secondly, between the wars, the locally buoyant engineering and electrical engineering base attracted people from the depressed northern cities and from south Wales. Thirdly, after 1945, the towns expanded rapidly to their present size, attracting young families from London and elsewhere in Britain—and also from continental Europe, especially from Italy, Poland and the former Yugoslavia. People also came from the new Commonwealth—from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and the Caribbean.
There are people from more than 50 countries of origin living and settled in Bedford and Kempston. They have their various identities and, in many cases, their children, and their children's children, were born in the area and are growing up there. They are all part of the wider community and they contribute strongly to it.
That makes for a constituency rich in the diversity of its people and, therefore, strong in its potential for the many ideas and talents that we all need to bring to fruition if we are to work together to build a better world.
That ethnic diversity was recognised and respected by my predecessor for the Bedford part of the new constituency—Sir Trevor Skeet, who retired at the general election. I am pleased to acknowledge his role both as a constituency Member of Parliament for 27 years and as a man who displayed independence of thought. I wish him and Lady Valerie Skeet a long and happy retirement. I also wish to salute the service to Bedford of the two Labour Members of Parliament elected by slim majorities in 1945 and 1966—Tom Skeffington-Lodge and Bryan Parkin.
During the past three months, my constituents have shared with me some of their problems, hopes and fears. There are always many problems, of course, and most are connected with the wider social, economic and political realities.
In housing, for example, there is a constant expression of need associated with an inadequate supply of affordable housing to buy and to rent. There are those whose lives have been blighted by the deep injustices associated with the bureaucratic nightmare which is the Child Support Agency. There are many others whose lives have been reduced by the creaking welfare benefit system which locks so many people into a life of dependency and relative poverty, instead of offering a helping hand into education, training, skills and dignity.
I am sure that I am not alone in being told about the stresses and worries generated by the growing pressures on community and social services, the national health service and local schools, despite the very best efforts of dedicated staff. People are concerned about crime, vandalism, jobs, pensions and transport, but they also tell me that, since the general election, the mood has changed for the better.
There are still problems—there always will be—but there is now a feeling that there can be solutions. People are not displaying unrealistic expectations or a desire for magic instant answers, but they believe that we can make progress—a step at a time if need be—and for the many, not just the few.
People in Bedford and Kempston want to see smaller class sizes, quality child care and early-years education. They want lifelong learning to become a reality for all those people who have been denied it for too long. My constituents support the prospect of a revived NHS and they want to see fairness at work and a realistic minimum wage.
People support the measures to tackle unemployment and to boost investment by supporting business by helping people to train and improve their skills. Many of my constituents have made it clear also that they want this country to be positive in Europe and to play our part in fair trade and international co-operation, peace and justice. They want us to be active in cleaning up the global environment in our interdependent one world.
So many people who feel that they have been forgotten over the years—including pensioners and those with disabilities—are waiting with interest for the reviews of the benefits system, pensions and community care. If I may say so, I hope that my constituents will not just wait, but will have their say in the consultation process. In my


view, a wind of change is blowing through the country today. Expectations are rising, but with higher expectations comes the serious responsibility of the need to deliver. My constituents are patient and are prepared to give the Government a fair chance.
There are concerns about the effect of the strong pound on industry and employment, and about the consequences of the appalling state of the public finances which we have inherited and which point to further cuts in schools, hospitals and local council services. I urge the Government to be sensitive to those concerns and to help to minimise the damage before we get on to the long road to recovery outlined in my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget.
There are concerns about traffic congestion and pollution, and I hope that local interested parties will respond to the consultation exercise on trunk roads in England, argue for measures that will help to complete the bypass in Bedford and Kempston and press more widely for improved rail services. With rising expectations and greater public interest in politics and our national life, it is now all the more important that we open up our democracy so that all voices can be heard. That means action on freedom of information, and parliamentary, electoral and constitutional reform.
Since the general election, this country has begun a great journey and we cannot turn back. I have no doubt that it will be a long and often difficult road, but it will be worth it. In common with the majority of the British people, most of my constituents offer their support and their good will to help to ensure, in the words of a former leader of my party, John Smith,
that the best of Britain is yet to come.

Mr. Michael Howard: May I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on his maiden speech? He spoke of his constituency with the intimacy which comes of long residence, and my right hon. and hon. Friends particularly appreciated his tribute to Sir Trevor Skeet.
I speak—unusually, from the Dispatch Box, in this debate—to raise the question of the Government's so-called ethical foreign policy and particularly its application to defence-related exports. I do so because there has been no previous opportunity to do so and because the Foreign Secretary has gone to extraordinary lengths to evade questioning on this topic.
Let me make it quite clear at the outset that the Opposition whole-heartedly support the view that this country should have an ethical foreign policy. We believe that we had an ethical foreign policy under the previous Government. In considering applications for export licences for defence-related equipment, for example, those responsible were required to take into account, among many other factors, the
behaviour of the recipient state and its human rights record.
Indeed, on many occasions under the previous Government, licences for defence-related equipment were refused.
The Foreign Secretary clearly intends to take a different approach—or at least he wants people to think that he is taking a different approach. First, with a flourish of

trumpets, the Foreign Secretary issued his mission statement in the Locarno suite of the Foreign Office on 12 May. He described it as a new mission statement and said that it set out new directions in foreign policy. He said that he was setting a new direction for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
In the course of setting out these new directions, the Foreign Secretary put up a series of Aunt Sallies and proceeded to knock them down. He said, for example:
the Labour Government does not accept that political values can be left behind when we check in our passports to travel on diplomatic business.
But nor, as I have made clear, did any of my former right hon. Friends who served as Foreign Secretary since 1979 accept that. Nor do I.
The second occasion on which the Foreign Secretary raised the matter outside the House was on 17 July. In a speech entitled "Human Rights into a New Century" he set out a dozen steps to
carry through the Government's commitment to raise international human rights standards.
Most of these steps continue the policies of the previous Government. In many cases, the fact that they do so is openly acknowledged.
On Monday, the Foreign Secretary announced the criteria to be used in considering licence applications for the export of conventional arms under this allegedly new policy. Given the importance that the Foreign Secretary clearly attaches to the policy—and given the fact that there has been so much press briefing about it—one might have expected the announcement to be made by way of an oral statement to the House. One might have thought that the Foreign Secretary was proud of his initiative.
Not a bit of it. The announcement was smuggled out in a written answer to a question from the hon. Member for East Ham (Mr. Timms). There was no opportunity to question the Foreign Secretary and we are left to speculate on the meaning to be attributed to this delphic pronouncement.
Let us test it by reference to one of the more controversial cases in this field—the export of Hawk jets to Indonesia. The sale of those aircraft to Indonesia was initiated by the Labour Government in 1978, less than three years after Indonesian troops entered the capital of East Timor. However, as a senior member of the Government insisted to the Financial Times on 18 July:
there is no evidence that the aircraft is being used in East Timor. Our intelligence on that is very clear".
The Minister also said, in the same report in that newspaper:
the decision on Hawks should not be seen as a sign that new applications for similar export licences would be approved".
Why not, if they have not been used in East Timor?
Later briefing makes the tale even murkier. Foreign Office sources told The Daily Telegraph—according to yesterday's paper—that, after legal advice, it was decided that it was "unrealistic and impractical" to revoke export licences granted before Labour's election victory. They also said, however:
the Hawk jet deal would be still seen as acceptable under the new rules".
What we now have is the worst of all worlds—the minimum of clarity, the maximum of confusion. We are discussing not some academic paper, but a policy on which people's livelihoods may depend.
I hope that the Leader of the House will tell us at the end of this debate why it was "unrealistic and impractical" to revoke export licences granted before 1 May, if that indeed was the reason for their being allowed to continue. I hope that after the recess, the Foreign Secretary will make some effort to clear up the mess that his various statements have created. I hope that the country will note this sorry episode as yet another example of those warm words from Whitehall signifying nothing that are rapidly becoming the hallmark of this Government.

Mrs. Janet Dean: I am grateful for this opportunity to make my maiden speech. I have heard many excellent speeches by so many Members who, like myself, are new to the House. It seems strange that it should be such a daunting task when many of us have been used to speaking at council and public meetings in our constituencies. Some, like my colleague the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), could not wait to make their first speech. Others, like myself and my predecessor for the constituency, Sir Ivan Lawrence, chose to approach the task at a rather more leisurely pace.
Sir Ivan made his maiden speech on 1 May 1974, and went on to make the longest continuous speech on the Floor of the House in this century—some four hours and 27 minutes. I may have emulated him on the time that it has taken me to make my first speech, Madam Speaker, but I promise I will not follow his latter example, although I commend him for his fortitude.
Before the recess, I wanted to tell the House how delighted I am to have been elected to represent the Burton constituency. I came to live in the constituency in 1968, when I married my dear Alan, who was my inspiration in politics. In those 29 years, the people of the Burton constituency have shown me their warmth, friendship and support, and I thank them for the great honour that they have given me in electing me to the House. I must also thank those who worked so hard to get a Labour Member elected for Burton for the first time since 1945, when Arthur Lyne gained the seat for Labour.
Other Members for Burton have been named Bass, Evershed, Ratcliffe and Gretton. Yes, as the name of my constituency suggests, the largest town is that of Burton upon Trent, the home of brewing—the world capital of the brewing industry. Brewing grew up in Burton because the monks of the local abbey discovered the special qualities of the local well water. By 1880, there were around 40 breweries in Burton. Now we have four—Bass, Carlsberg Tetley, Marston' s and the smaller Burton Bridge Brewery.
The brewers may not now be the major employer in Burton, but the breweries still encompass large areas of the centre of the town. Many fine buildings owe their legacy to the brewing industry. The history of that industry is best displayed at the Bass museum, the home of the famous Bass shire horses.
Burton upon Trent has many qualities, including the Trent washlands, which provide a uniquely attractive informal parkland in the centre of the town. Burton upon Trent has its problems, however. It has the highest unemployment rate of all the main settlements in Staffordshire, and six of the most deprived wards in the west midlands outside the conurbation are in the town centre.
I commend the local authorities and industries and all those who are working closely in partnership to try to overcome the high unemployment levels and improve the quality of life in those wards. Single regeneration budget and European regional development fund moneys are particularly important to the regeneration of the centre of Burton, as are the Government's welfare-to-work proposals.
We all know that there is work that needs doing, that there are homes that need improving and insulating, and people who need to use their abilities and develop their talents. In my constituency, 366 young people who have been unemployed for more than six months, and 489 long-term unemployed will benefit from the Government's policies. The 16,500 pensioners in the constituency will benefit from the cut in value added tax on fuel and, whether my constituents live in Burton upon Trent, the villages and rural areas or our other town of Uttoxeter, they now have new hope for the future.
I mentioned the breweries in Burton, but Uttoxeter is famous for its race course, one of the best small courses in the country. Four breweries and a race course—can any other constituency boast of such icons of leisure? Uttoxeter is always classified as a market town, but has always been more than just that. It has always been a working town as well and has weekly cattle and retail markets, which attract visitors from a wider area. Its industries have developed from the agricultural area by which it is surrounded.
Uttoxeter used to be the home of Bamford's agricultural machinery company and a dairy that, even in the days before refrigeration, sent milk by rail up to London. Sadly, both Bamford's and the dairy closed in the 1980s and Uttoxeter lost many local jobs. Elkes Biscuits has continued to grow, however, and is now the largest employer in the area.
The town of Uttoxeter has not only a heritage centre but a memorial to Dr. Johnson. Hon. Members will know of Dr. Samuel Johnson's skill in compiling the first dictionary, but they may not be aware of his connection with Uttoxeter. His father ran a bookstall in the marketplace. One day, when he was ill, he asked young Samuel to stand in for him. Dr. Johnson refused; so, when he was 70, he returned to Uttoxeter and, as an act of penance, stood bareheaded in the rain.
I am not too sure what Dr. Johnson would have thought about the election of a woman Member of Parliament, or the fact that there are now 120 of us in the House. He was known to make disparaging remarks about women. One of his most generous was:
I am very fond of the company of ladies—I like their beauty … and I like their silence.
I am unsure whether Mary Queen of Scots was kept in silence, but she was certainly imprisoned in Tutbury castle for 18 years. Tutbury is a charming historic village, which is famous for its Tutbury crystal. Close by, near the village of Hanbury, is the site of the biggest explosion ever to take place in this country. The Fauld explosion on Monday 27 November 1944 was caused by an underground bomb store exploding. A farm house and other buildings just disappeared, and 70 people were killed.
There are many attractive villages in my constituency: Marchington; Draycott; Newborough, with its well dressings; and, to the north, Ellastone, Stanton and


Mayfield, which border Ashbourne and the Peak district. The rural areas are not without their problems; the six most northerly parishes are part of the SRB 5 area, and the BSE crisis caused much distress to many of my constituents.
One of the greatest success stories is the JCB factory at Rocester. It is set in superb grounds, with lakes, statues and a vast complex of buildings that blend in with the countryside around them. The company is world renowned and has become a symbol of British industry at its best; it has invested in its plant and developed other factory sites around Staffordshire, including one in Uttoxeter, and continues to develop new machines to meet the needs of customers throughout the world.
Next door to Rocester is the pretty village of Denstone, which is the gateway to the Churnet valley and Alton Towers. I am lucky to represent an area of such diversity and I look forward to continuing to work with all those who are involved with the communities in the Burton constituency, including the voluntary sector and our schools, which have welcomed the extra money in the Budget. I will work with local authorities and businesses.
My constituency is truly in the heart of England, ideally situated for inward investment and industrial and commercial development. Now that I have taken hon. Members on a tour of the delights of Burton, I hope that I will have whetted their appetites and that, during the recess, some might think it an ideal spot to visit; whether at the world barrel rolling championships at the Burton festival in September, or at the races in Uttoxeter, they will be given a very warm welcome.

Mr. Thomas Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on her maiden speech, which was thoughtful and composed; she gave us many reasons to visit her constituency, not least the breweries that are based there, and I am grateful to her for not emulating her predecessor by talking for four hours or more.
I should declare an interest in my topic, albeit a non-pecuniary one. I want to discuss the accident and emergency unit at St. Helier, which is the local hospital at which our first child was born two weeks ago. In the past three years, the hospital has been in and out of the news and in the public eye.
Some hon. Members may remember a story that appeared six or nine months ago about a patient who spent 72 hours waiting on a trolley before being moved into the hospital proper. A petition calling for the A and E unit to be kept open 24 hours a day, seven days a week, was signed by 2,500 local residents, as the unit was having to shut its doors at peak times because of overcrowding.
There is no doubt that conditions at the A and E unit will improve, as an extension is being built, but unfortunately, according to the nurses there, it is a case of too little, too late, and they are expected to ballot for industrial action within the next couple of weeks; they have already received approval from the Royal College of Nursing council to go ahead.
I am afraid to say that I am assured that the results of the ballot are a foregone conclusion: the nurses will take industrial action. I hasten to say that the action will be

limited and that there is little, if any, risk to patients. The nurses intend to withdraw their good will, which means that they will not work during lunch breaks, as they currently do, or provide cover at short notice.
Why are the nurses taking action? It is not about pay and conditions at the hospital but about their concerns about the quality of care that patients are receiving at the A and E unit. They are worried because the out-patients department is being used an overspill area for the A and E unit. Even the children's waiting area—there is a separate children's unit—is being used for adults because of overcrowding.
The action could start within the next four weeks. I raised the matter with the Secretary of State for Health, but I am afraid that his response was quite blunt: to paraphrase, he said that it was nothing to do with him and was a matter for the hospital management. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) raised the matter at Prime Minister' s Question Time and got a more conciliatory response, although I think that the underlying message was the same: that it was down to the hospital management.
I accept that the hospital management bears the brunt of responsibility, but the St. Helier trust had a couple of million pounds cut from its budget recently and the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth health authority, the main purchaser in the area, has a deficit of more than £10 million, so neither of those organisations will be in a position to help the A and E unit or the nurses, and I am afraid that that leaves the Secretary of State for Health in the firing line.
I hope that we will not be told about jam in the next financial year. The A and E unit is under threat this year and the nurses propose to take industrial action this summer—not next year, but probably within the next four weeks. I hope that the Leader of the House will convey my great concern to the Secretary of State; there is still time for him to take action. He can still take an interest in the dispute and help to secure a painless outcome for patients, staff and management at the hospital.
There is still time to stop the RCN taking action. It should be noted that it would be the first time that the RCN has taken action because of concerns about the quality of patient care. I hope that my plea will not fall on deaf ears and that the Secretary of State will show that the national health service really is safe in the new Government's hands.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I want to talk about the future of energy provision, and to press for a full debate on a comprehensive energy policy. If we are to plan for the 21st century, we need a fuel policy to secure energy supplies for future generations. Our approach must be built on a firm foundation and we must put the current energy supply policy in a proper perspective.
Because of shortness of time, I intend to focus my remarks on the electricity supply industry. Electricity is supplied from many sources, and I want the various means of generation to continue, but the major source is coal. That is understandable because of our vast coal reserves. At present, about 45 million to 50 million tonnes are produced annually. It creates about 66,000 jobs, which is a substantial contribution to our economy. The distortion in the electricity regenerating industry and the way in


which fuel is used for generating electricity gives rise to two prime concerns. One is subsidised foreign coal and the other is the bias in favour of gas.
I am not asking for favours for coal—I am asking for fairness. Instances of unfair competition have been identified and form the subject of negotiations. Subsidies are a case in point. Government Departments are involved. The artificially low price of electricity generated from gas significantly distorts the generation of baseload electricity in favour of gas at the expense of coal.
The Financial Times of 17 June reported that the German coal industry received substantial subsidies, which resulted in the
'dumping' of German anthracite in the British market.
Germany captures a quarter of the United Kingdom's 400,000-tonne-a-year market for anthracite. Mr. Keith McNair, the chief executive of Celtic Energy, claimed that German producers were selling their coal for less than the cost of its production. According to the report:
Bonn spends about DM10.3 billion in subsidies to keep 85,000 miners employed in the coal industry.… it costs German producers up to £100 a tonne to mine and ship anthracite.
It sells in the United Kingdom at £75 per tonne, and the market price ranges between £85 and £100 per tonne.
There is thus a bias in favour of German coal which affects the United Kingdom coal market. The Germans argue that if they had to run down their coal industry as a result of the withdrawal of subsidies, Germany would lose its position as a leading manufacturer of mining equipment. Our engineering industry is also affected, because German mining equipment manufacturers are subsidised. That is why we should have a major debate on the coal industry.
The inability of coal to compete with gas on a fair and level basis results from significant distortions, which result in electricity generated by gas being bid by electricity generators into the baseload generation market in the electricity pool of England and Wales at artificially low prices as a result of uneconomic bidding behaviour, which displaces coal-fired generation plant in favour of gas. The crucial part of bids for fuel is the base load principle. As the generating industry is biased in favour of gas, coal-fired generators cannot bid for the base load and have to bid into the mid-merit market. That is unfair competition.
All the coal industry is asking for is the opportunity to bid to supply fuel for baseload generation. That is not unreasonable.

Mr. Brake: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the implications of an increase in coal-fired generation for the Government's carbon dioxide emission targets?

Mr. O'Brien: I will deal with that point, but my point is to underline the unfairness of subsidised coal and the bias in favour of gas created by not allowing coal to tender for the baseload.
The United Kingdom coal industry accepts its responsibility to reduce emission levels by using clean coal technology. It will be more than able to make its contribution to the Government's commitment to a 20 per cent. reduction on 1990 levels of carbon dioxide by 2010. In order to meet that target, we need to start investing in clean coal technology now.
The coal industry is geared up for the introduction of clean coal technology. I am a former mineworker and a member of a mining community. We accept that the coal industry has a responsibility to promote clean coal technology. We have the means. What we need now is the resources to help us to move in that direction.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry has said that an acceptable energy policy must encompass three watchwords—diversity, security and sustainability. Diversity can be defined in principle as a fuel mix, not a monoculture or duopoly based on one or two sources of energy. Today's mix of gas, nuclear and coal gives us that diversity. A dash for gas at the expense of coal would make us overdependent on one fuel. The coal industry accepts the need for diversity. We are asking for the opportunity to play a full part in electricity generation.
Security can be defined as the need to ensure that the country is not dependent on imported energy. United Kingdom gas reserves are limited, and it is estimated that they will run out early in the 21st century; yet coal is in abundance here in our own country.
A sustainable energy policy will ensure that future generations have access to competitive sources of energy that can be produced in an environmentally acceptable way, using clean coal technology. It is accepted that the non-fossil fuel levy will be dispensed with in a few months' time. Some of the resources could be used to develop clean coal technology. That would give us the means to produce electricity from coal while meeting the emissions levels requested by the Government.
The non-fossil fuel levy has been used to support nuclear power and the development of renewable sources of energy. If we can channel some of those resources into clean coal technology, I believe that we could create a balanced system of energy provision for the future. If we are to have a comprehensive energy policy that makes use of the diverse fuels available to us, we must consider the use of coal as a serious option. There is an urgent need to address that matter, because, although the coal industry is efficient and a success story, that cannot be maintained unless we consider the use of subsidies, the inherent unfairness of the comparative prices of gas and coal and the use of clean coal technology.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to provide time in the near future for a full debate on a comprehensive energy policy. Hon. Members would then have the opportunity to express their concerns either for or against the arguments that I have raised. I rest my case.

Mr. David Tredinnick: I, too, extend my congratulations to the hon. Members for Burton (Mrs. Dean) and for Bedford (Mr. Hall) on their interesting and informative maiden speeches.
I was particularly interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Bedford, because I well recall serving with Sir Trevor Skeet in the Committee on the Electricity Bill, which privatised the industry. I noted his great expertise in nuclear power and all matters relating to energy.
I understand that there was some dispute locally about whether Sir Trevor should stand for re-election in 1992. I wrote to the Bedford Echo—I believe that that is its


title, but the hon. Gentleman can correct me if I am wrong—to say what a tremendous job Sir Trevor had done in that Committee, and I explained that the expertise of senior Members is valuable to the House. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is fortunate that Sir Trevor decided to retire at the previous election and did not contest the seat.
I wish to raise issues relating to statutory instruments, or secondary legislation, and if time permits I would also like to say a word about the threat behind vitamins. I should like to discuss secondary legislation wearing my hat as the Chairman of the JCSI—the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments—and Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments. There are three areas of concern which those Committees are currently considering, which I wish to raise with the Leader of the House and bring to the attention of hon. Members.
The first relates to matters outstanding from the previous Parliament. The second concern relates to issues that are the subject of current debate, and the third relates to issues of concern for the future. We are considering them at a time when the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of the Commons is considering certain recommendations, and there is the strong possibility of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly. I put it to hon. Members that there has never been a better time to consider such matters.
The outstanding issues from the previous Parliament relate to the scrutiny of delegated legislation and statutory instruments derived from European legislation. The Procedure Committee, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), published a report in June 1996 on delegated legislation, which drew attention to the deficiencies in the current system of consideration and scrutiny of statutory instruments.
The report recommended that the praying time, the time to object against negative instruments—there are, of course, negative and affirmative ones, and negative instruments do not necessarily go into Committee—should be extended to 60 days. It also recommended that a Standing Order should be introduced to prevent the House from taking a decision on any instrument until the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had completed its consideration of it.
Thirdly, and most importantly, it recommended that a new Select Committee should be established to identify which of the many instruments laid before Parliament involve important questions of policy and should therefore be drawn to the special attention of the House. I draw that recommendation particularly to the attention of the Leader of the House.
That sifting Committee would go some way to filling what has often been identified as a gap in the process of scrutiny of instruments. The JCSI is only empowered to look at the vires or the legality of instruments, rather than consider their drafting or their merits. I must tell the right hon. Lady that a Government response to that report is still awaited, and perhaps she may care refer in her reply to her current deliberations and whether those points have been taken into consideration.
The second outstanding matter that has exercised the Committee and which is the subject of considerable debate is instruments derived from European obligations. In the same report, the Procedure Committee

recommended that statutory instruments made under the European Communities Act 1972 should be colour-coded or marked in some way, to make their derivation easily identifiable by hon. Members.
Secondly, in a report on European business, which was published in March 1997, the Committee made further recommendations that the proposed sifting Committee on statutory instruments should be empowered to look at how Whitehall Departments implement directives in United Kingdom legislation. That is a topical issue, because many of my hon. Friends might say that Whitehall is attempting to ride roughshod over the wishes of hon. Members and force matters that should not be forced.
That is a matter of concern to the JCSI because of gold-plating—jargon for the over-implementation of European legislation—and the sheer number of instruments which create offences, and are unsatisfactorily drafted in terms of standard United Kingdom legislative practice. What proposals does the Leader of the House have to implement the Committee's recommendations relating to European legislation?
The current debate on delegated legislation relates to devolution. According to the Government's proposals for Scottish devolution, there are many issues that we must consider relating to statutory instruments. I give the right hon. Lady notice that there should be a separate debate in the autumn on secondary legislation.
The devolution of power to Scotland raises issues to do with how the Scottish Parliament will make and scrutinise secondary legislation. What will be the relationship between any Committee established by the Parliament for this purpose and the Joint Committee of this House?
The Scottish Parliament will create, in its legislation on devolved—non-reserved—areas, new powers to make subordinate legislation, exercisable by Ministers of the Scottish Executive. According to papers already published, the Scottish Parliament will constitute its own Committees to scrutinise subordinate legislation, whether made under existing Westminster Acts or future Scottish Acts. The Westminster Parliament's Joint Committee, the JCSI, and the Select Committee, the SCSI, will, I infer, scrutinise delegated legislation on reserved matters; but that is not clear.
It is not just the Midlothian question that is unclear—there are many other unclear issues at stake.

Sir Patrick Cormack: indicated assent.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am pleased to see my hon. Friend nodding assent.
The sheer volume of secondary legislation passing through this place is staggering. I have already, for instance, referred to the amount of European legislation.
Will the JCSI check the Scottish Parliament's statutory instruments to see whether they are legal and free of conflicts with primary legislation; or will statutory instruments go straight off to Edinburgh, where it may be found that they conflict with current law? This is a technical matter which gives rise to great concern, and some thought must be given to it.
The other devolution proposal, for a Welsh Assembly, is quite different, but just as complicated. There is no easy way out. Just as we found in 1979, when the autumn


debates begin, it will be seen that nothing is going to be easy. The fact that the Labour Government have thus far allocated 48 hours of debate will not serve them well, either. In 1979, there were 47 days of debate on the Floor of the House, not to delay proceedings but to examine all these questions. In the end, there was no solution, which is why the legislation fell. Curtailing debate this time will not lead to a solution.
I do not, however, intend to be sidetracked today. The Welsh proposals for the scrutiny of secondary legislation by the Welsh Assembly are, unlike the Scottish proposals, set out in some detail in the White Paper. The Assembly—it will not be a Parliament—will be able not just to make but to amend and reject secondary legislation. Its Committees will also be able to consult, and take expert advice, on draft orders. The power currently possessed by the Secretary of State to revoke, replace or amend secondary legislation passed by this House will be given to the Assembly.
How will this work in practice? What are the implications for the relationship between Westminster and the Assembly? What are the implications of this extension of powers for the scrutiny process at Westminster?
The Welsh Assembly will be a deliberative body; it will inherit executive powers from the Welsh Office, including the power to make subordinate legislation. Hence the Assembly, under Westminster legislation and vires, will make secondary legislation. If that secondary legislation is arguably ultra vires, it will be referred to the Privy Council's Judicial Committee. Is that the Government's intention? Do they plan to let the Privy Council sort out these matters? That, at any rate, is how things stand now.
The Committees of the Assembly will prepare the legislation, but the Assembly itself will approve and make it by order. Scrutiny of secondary legislation will be done apparently by a secondary legislation Scrutiny Committee of the Assembly, considering first draft orders. But implementation of the UK's European obligations will remain at Westminster—or will it? We do not know. It is yet another grey area. I am sorry to burden the Leader of the House with so many grey areas, but we really do need answers, faced as we are with complex legislation which, some would argue, is about the break-up of the United Kingdom. Indeed, it may lead to precisely that.
These are not minor issues relating to a particular Bill or order. They relate to the whole principle of the government of these islands. They refer back to the unravelling of decisions made, I think, at the time of the Act of Union in 1704—although I am not an historian, and I stand to be corrected by my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack).

Sir Patrick Cormack: Seventeen hundred and seven.

Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful. I spent some time with my hon. Friend in the last Parliament on parliamentary business, and I learned then of his expertise.
The question remains: will responsibility for the scrutiny of instruments implementing our European obligations remain with the JCSI? Will scrutiny of statutory instruments made under transferred powers be done by the Welsh Scrutiny Committee? Will other statutory instruments remain the responsibility of the Joint Committee? This autumn, we need a debate on the whole issue of statutory instruments. It would be a grave mistake not to consider it.
My final point on devolved secondary legislation concerns the future of the European convention on human rights. It will have an impact on the exercising of powers to make delegated legislation—not necessarily a well-known fact.
We need to know what consultation there will be on issues of parliamentary scrutiny in this area. We need to know more about the suggestion that either a Joint Committee of both Houses or the existing Joint Committee should examine the matter. Do the Government propose to set up a new Committee? Will it be a Sub-Committee of one of the newly established Committees; or will members of the Joint Committee which I chair have this responsibility? I should like an answer from the right hon. Lady.
I want to raise one other subject entirely unrelated to statutory instruments. I do so as the long-serving—almost 10-year—treasurer of the parliamentary group on alternative and complementary medicine. My point relates to the Government's decision to withdraw or ban a range of vitamin B6 supplements, which, among other things, help with pre-menstrual tension, heart disease and a range of other ailments. I say this against the background of a tendency to turn ever more to alternative medicine and away from conventional medicine.
The fact remains that the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, has decided to ban higher dose supplements. Time prevents me from going through all the arguments today, and I know that other colleagues want to speak—but this issue, I warn the Government, will not go away.
If MAFF wants to expand its postroom, fine. Thousands of letters will be pouring in on this issue. The Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment has taken the soft option, and has insisted on pills of an unnecessarily high degree of safety. That has enraged people in the world of alternative medicine.
In all my time running the secretariat for the parliamentary group, I have never come across a Government decision so at variance with so much professional thought in the industry, and so annoying to so many people and practitioners.
In the previous Parliament, the Government had to deal with the herb comfrey, and we won that case. The Minister of State is in his submarine and going straight for the bottom, because this issue will not go away. I implore the Leader of the House urgently to tackle him and ask him to review his decision. I should be most grateful if she did so.

Mr. Jim Dobbin: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech during this general debate. I am pleased to be making it before the recess, because that means that I can go home feeling that I have achieved a little. I have to be careful what I say, because I believe that you had a connection with part of my constituency in earlier days.
My constituency is one of those that make up the metropolitan borough of Rochdale. Having been subjected to boundary changes, the constituency of Heywood and Middleton now incorporates the wards of Castleton and


of Norden and Bamford. When it was in the constituency of Rochdale, Norden and Bamford was probably an 8,000 Conservative block vote, but at the last election there were some major switches, and in parts of the ward we took up to 40 per cent. of the vote. Both Castleton and Norden and Bamford were formerly part of the Rochdale constituency.
It is said that Heywood was created in the 18th century by the father of Sir Robert Peel. It has a strong sense of working-class history and tradition. Today, Heywood is an expanding centre for the distribution industry on one side of the M62 and close to the M66, which motorway has recently been under review but is now due to be completed, thanks to the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is a most important road link around the Manchester conurbation.
Heywood has many links with historical events and people, and certainly has dramatic links with this House. Peter Heywood of Heywood hall is credited with being one of those who, on 4 March 1605, snatched the lantern from the hand of one Guy Fawkes. Right hon. and hon. Members therefore have a former constituent of Heywood to thank for the preservation of this democratic establishment—I nearly said a former constituent of mine, but that would have given away my age. The lantern is on show at the Ashmolean museum in Oxford.
A descendant of Peter Heywood, also called Peter Heywood, was a midshipman on the famous ship, the Bounty. It is recorded that he was vindicated of mutiny, as one would expect of a fine, upstanding constituent of that town.
To the south of the M62 lies Middleton. Samuel Bamford, one of the great political poets and reformers, led a contingent from Middleton to Manchester, where a number were murdered at Peterloo in 1819.
I represent two wards in Rochdale, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons), my colleague and neighbour, on her tremendous win in the general election. Rochdale has the distinction of being the birthplace of the Co-operative movement, which recently celebrated its 150th anniversary. As recent leader of Rochdale council, I am proud to be a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament.
I am proud of the radical traditions and politics of my constituency, which I inherited from my predecessor Jim Callaghan—little Jim Callaghan, known widely in the House as "Gentleman Jim". He spent 22 years in the House, and was recognised throughout the constituency as a hard-working Member who built his majority from 500 to more than 8,000. In this year's general election, the majority was 17,500. Jim was always loyal to his constituents and to his party, and he left the House knowing that he had done a good job.
Before him, Joel Barnett, now Lord Barnett and a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, served the people of Heywood with great distinction, and is remembered with great affection. I can never fill the shoes of my two eminent predecessors—I can merely try to do my best.
Having come from local government, I judge much of the legislation introduced in the House by the effect it will have on local government, services to local communities

and the local economy, because that is where the people will measure its impact. The Government's commitment to schools, raising standards, smaller class sizes and repairing school buildings will be most welcome in my constituency, where many classes contain more than 30 pupils and many schools are in a state of disrepair.
I especially welcome the Government's early decision to fund a new hospital for my constituents based in Rochdale. The proposed new deal on welfare to work is a real bonus for the area, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, other partners, represented by the local training and enterprise council, the chamber of commerce, business link and the council, and I have already produced a scheme that I hope the Minister concerned will find exciting. Allowances for small business and the release of capital receipts will clearly benefit the local economy. I am so far pleased with the contents of the Budget.
However, I have for some time been concerned about the links and the relationship between central and local government, which have deteriorated in recent years. The debate on the proper relationship between central and local government is not a new one: its origins in this country date back to the middle ages and the territorial conflicts between the monarchy and nobility over the relationship between the Crown and its most powerful subjects. The compromise reached with the signing at Runnymede of the Magna Carta, which laid the foundations of our so-called unwritten constitution, can be seen as the forerunner of modern conflicts in local and central relations.
We need to put the relationship between central and local government into perspective. Despite the supremacy of Parliament, which was established during the English civil war in the 17th century, there has always been an uneasy relationship with the regions and localities; but, even without a written constitution, the importance of local government and administration has been acknowledged. Today, we need to define a new relationship with the centre that meets the challenges of the next century.
Our role in a new Europe and our responsibilities to our own citizens also need to be redefined. When, all over Europe, the emphasis is on decentralisation, devolution and the delegation of powers, this country should meet the challenge and give leadership in the transformation of our society and our economy into smaller, more manageable, self-governing but interdependent units. We must move away from centralisation, bureaucracy and conformity. Regionalism and local self-government will become more important in the Europe of tomorrow than the complex interplay between independent nation states.
Today, when nearly all our major economic and industrial competitors recognise the importance of local self-determination, economic autonomy and the need -to provide a flexible localised response to a changing environment, economy and society, we have created a great centralised system that destroys local initiative and disregards local achievement.
Through the introduction of universal education, sanitation and welfare, and through the great cotton entrepreneurs of the north and the great civic fathers such as Joseph Chamberlain in Birmingham, who promoted self-esteem and a measure of local control, this country pioneered great developments in local self-government during the 19th century; but we are now sadly falling way


behind other European countries. On the continent, local government is a major force behind economic and social change. Its relationship with the centre is that of a partnership and its role is that of an activator and enabler.
Local government in this country is less powerful than it was 18 years ago. It has less discretion and less money, and it is hampered by a legislative straitjacket designed to prevent it from responding to local needs in contravention of policies determined at the centre. Despite all that, local government is resilient and has responded to changes in our economy and society. It has attempted to match limited resources to changing needs and has, within the confines of its powers, attempted to promote a measure of local autonomy.
I argue that, whatever we might think of local government, it has been able to adapt to a new environment and can provide the key to our future success as a country, if it is allowed to act in partnership with our communities, with local business and industries, and with the voluntary sector, to intervene positively on behalf of the areas that it represents.
I am sure that we shall see parallels with moves in the private sector to greater integration and decentralisation of production groups with their own cost centres. There is an important difference, however. The private sector normally seeks to increase demand and can then increase supply in order to boost profits. Local government cannot do that. It is essentially a rationing agent, hemmed in by central Government's financial controls, which are far more primitive than any specific service-based legislation.
I am now coming to the end of this presentation. We must move with the times. We have become, as one commentator has suggested,
Europe's constitutional pygmy, a truncated democracy in which the entire political and economic life of the nation revolves around an all sovereign House of Commons.
That notion of democracy in a complex society is outdated and increasingly threatens not only our liberties but our pockets. The Government's policy of devolution of power and decision making—this is where I differ from the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick)—will surely go some way to bridge the obvious gap that exists between central and local government. That, I maintain, will maximise the benefits of the Government's policies and future Budgets.

Sir Peter Emery: I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on what he referred to as his "presentation"; it certainly was. He presented his constituency most ably. He will be able to contribute his obvious knowledge, and I should think experience, of local government to future debates, and I am certain that he will be listened to with interest and respect.
I shall now leave the Rochdale area, to ask the Leader of the House one or two questions. Why did she not feel it necessary to make a statement to the House yesterday, when the first report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons was published? Many matters have come before the House since the new Government came into office, but this one affects every hon. Member considerably. I make this speech to draw attention to some aspects of the report in debate before the House rises, and to make more people aware of them.
I have some good news and some bad news; I start with the good. I am delighted that the Committee, under the chairmanship of the Leader of the House, was able to present a unanimous report. I am pleased because it confirms several of the reports, awaiting action, produced by the Procedure Committee under my chairmanship. In addition, some new thoughts have been brought into consideration. Most important, however, all members of the Committee agreed that the object of the report was to improve the standard and the thoroughness of legislation that is passed by Parliament.
Some of the new considerations are interesting. First, the Government are willing to publish draft Bills, and the report recommends that there should be some pre-legislative scrutiny of those Bills before they are introduced to the House. Secondly, there might be a First Reading committee to consider that legislation before its Second Reading in the House.
Thirdly—repeating a recommendation by the Procedure Committee—there should be greater use of the Select Committee procedure for Standing Committees, which should be able to investigate aspects of a Bill and cross-question witnesses about it before proceeding with the usual Standing Committee amendment and consideration of the Bill. Those are all efforts to ensure that legislation passed by the House is better understood, and less open to error than it may have been in the past.
The next matter of considerable importance is that, at last, we have a sensible recommendation on the programming of legislation. I have argued for many moons that Oppositions of all parties are mistaken in their belief that long debate in Standing Committee, forcing the guillotine to be introduced, does anything to limit the progress of a Government's legislative programme. At no time since the war has a Bill introduced in the Gracious Speech not been approved legislatively during a full Session of that Parliament, unless a general election has shortened the Session.
Most people have not understood that, when a Bill goes into Committee upstairs, the Leader of the House and the officers supporting the Leader of the House have set a date when it must leave Committee, so that its passage may be completed to a reasonable timetable. When the Opposition have spent days—sometimes up to 100 hours—debating the first few clauses of a Bill, the Government have had to introduce a guillotine to ensure that the Bill was before the House for Report by the date that they had in mind.
If that is the case, in order to avoid wasting time in Committee, why not let Members know the period that the Bill can remain in Committee? That would allow the Committee to decide how best to use its time, so that it might debate every major clause. The Procedure Committee has advanced that argument for many moons, and I am delighted that the Government and the Modernisation Committee have adopted that concept.
I hope that, starting in November—I shall discuss the date later—we shall conduct an experiment. Immediately after Second Reading, the Government will produce—we hope by agreement through the usual channel—an idea of the date when the Bill will leave the Committee. It will then be left to the Sub-Committee of the Standing Committee to decide how the hours shall be devoted so that all clauses may be properly debated.
That must have considerable advantages in producing legislation that is better understood and has been thoroughly examined. It will ensure that legislation does not go to the House of Lords that has been only partially considered in Committee or on the Floor of the House.
We seldom pay tribute in the House to the Clerks who serve on Committees. The Principal Clerk at the Table may be embarrassed if I mention him by name, but a paper that he produced was helpful to the House, and Mr. David Natzler, the Second Clerk, has done immense work in producing papers for us. They deserve particular credit.
May I be controversial? I am sorry that the Committee did not start by dealing with Prime Minister's Questions. There is a major arrogance in how the Government altered Prime Minister's Questions without consultation—they are now held only once instead of twice a week. The House has already heard me on this matter, but I shall continue to press it. It is wrong that matters that arise after Cabinet on a Thursday cannot be put to the Prime Minister until the following Wednesday. The Prime Minister talks about wanting to be democratic and pays tribute to the work of the House, but he arrogantly casts the House to one side. We must return to the matter before long.
I have another little hobby horse: I am delighted that we are moving in the direction of modernising the names of Committees so that they describe what Committees do. A Standing Committee does not stand; nor does it last the whole of a Parliament, but only for one Bill. Its sole purpose is to deal with the Bill before it, so I do not understand why it should not be called a legislative Committee. I am glad to say that we shall return to that matter in due course.
I urge the House to pay attention to the report. Will the Leader of the House guarantee today that she will introduce the necessary alterations—there are not many—to Standing Orders so that we can begin this experiment? We should not have to wait until February or March, but should start the experiment in November. The Committee can then monitor it correctly and report to the House on its success in June or July.
I gave the Leader of the House notice of a question that affects the south-west in particular: the improvement of the A30-A303 road links between London and Exeter. Within the "Wessex link", as it is termed, decisions have been made about the run between the north and south of the A36 and A46, which affects the Swindon bypass. I do not wish to argue about those decisions.
However, approval has been given and money earmarked for improvements to the A30-A303 from Marsh to Honiton. The hairpin bends on that road make some aspects of the grande corniche in the south of France look like Woolworth. They are dangerous, and an accident black spot. We need to progress with that, so I hope that the Leader of the House will ensure that the Government do not delay the matter.
Parts of the main link road between London and the west are just single carriageway on both sides. I shall not bother the House by listing them all, but four areas are set for approval, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will press for improvements, which will benefit the tourist industry. Tourism is the biggest industry and the biggest

earner in the south-west, so that link road is of the greatest importance. Will she carry that message to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Deputy Prime Minister who heads that Department?
I hope that the Leader of the House accepts that she deserves much credit for how she has chaired the Committee. She has been the one exception in the Government: there has been no arrogance from her, and I hope that some of her colleagues will copy her excellent example.

Mr. Martin Salter: I rise to make my maiden speech and I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to do so before the welcome summer recess. I understand that convention demands that my maiden speech should be non-controversial, which may be difficult; that I describe in glowing terms the delights of my constituency, which I am happy to do; and that I offer generous praise to my predecessor, which I am also happy to do—within reason.
May I take those three themes in reverse order? I am happy to pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Anthony Durant, who represented my constituency of Reading, West from 1983 to 1 May this year. In total, he served the people of Reading for more than 23 years, having first entered Parliament as the hon. Member for Reading, North, which in those days was considered a genuine marginal seat. Incidentally, the good people of Reading have been thoroughly confused by the machinations of the various boundary commissions, which have over the years tended to favour boundaries that benefited the Conservative interest, despite the long and proud Labour tradition of the town of Reading that stretches back to the days even before our most famous parliamentarian, the late and missed Ian Mikardo.
My first conversation of note with Tony Durant, as he was then, was in the summer of 1986—two years after I was elected to Reading borough council and some two months after I became chair of the leisure committee. It was not so much the conversation that stuck in my mind, although if I remember rightly we were discussing the forthcoming general election—from our respective political bunkers we both agreed that it was good that we would be contesting different seats and not fighting each other—as the venue. It was the backstage beer tent at the Reading festival. That would not have been remarkable had it not been for the decision of the previous Conservative-controlled council to scrap the rock festival in 1984 and 1985.
At that time, I learnt two important lessons from Tony Durant: first, he took absolutely no notice of the absurd and unpopular actions of his Conservative council colleagues, which is presumably why he was re-elected to this place long after they had all been wiped out in the council chamber; secondly, he was a man who liked people. Moreover, he was a man who liked people who like drink. He was and still is a convivial and sociable man, in marked contrast to some of the humourless robots who are, I am afraid, too often a feature of British politics.
However, Sir Anthony was not always a pillar of political consistency. He fought the 1974 election opposing the Reading rock festival—that was before he discovered the backstage beer tent—and in 1992 he spoke out against the planned Tory pit closures only to vote in favour of them in December of the same year.
Sir Anthony Durant and I share a common interest: a love of the rivers and canals of Berkshire and the Thames valley—Sir Anthony, appropriately, from the cabin of his boat; I, also appropriately, from the muddy river bank fishing for fish more often than I ever fish for votes. We have both spoken out against the decline in our region's rivers, Sir Anthony on over-extraction from the beautiful little River Pang, which has almost been destroyed by the greed of the privatised water companies, and I over the decline of the River Kennet and the River Thames through pollution and threats to develop the watermeadows and over the disgraceful dumping of radioactive effluent by AWE Aldermaston.
Sir Anthony was a hard-working and well-respected constituency Member. His announcement that he planned to retire and not contest Reading, West at the last election persuaded me to seek the Labour nomination for the seat. Although a majority of 13,000 might seem daunting, a good proportion of that number represented Sir Anthony's personal vote, which could not be considered the property of the Conservative hopeful, one Nicholas Bennett. That proved to be the case.
My last conversation with Sir Anthony—I trust that there will be many more—was a month or so after the general election. He was in fine form and from the twinkle in his eye it seemed that that former Government Whip and undoubtedly loyal Conservative was not too unhappy about leaving this place or seeing the unpleasant Mr. Bennett soundly defeated.
I hope that there is no parliamentary convention that obliges hon. Members to speak in glowing terms of their political opponents at a general election. The Leader of the House is not scowling at me, so perhaps there is not. Never in my 25 years in politics have I encountered such a bigoted, bumptious and unpopular individual as Nicholas Jerome Bennett, the would-be Conservative Member for Reading, West, former Member for Pembroke and junior Welsh Office Minister in the last Thatcher Government.
I found it remarkable that when I arrived at the House I received a warm welcome from senior members of all political parties, some of whom are sitting on the Opposition Benches today. They welcomed me not because they knew me or had a particular interest in the internal politics of Reading, but because they had been spared the awful prospect of being lectured and hectored by that individual for the next five years.
In case hon. Members are wondering what they are missing, I shall outline a few of the policies that I will not be supporting and which would have been put forward had Labour not won the seat of Reading, West. They include the wholesale privatisation of the national health service, the removal of the right of council tenants to act as jurors—after all, we cannot have poor people judging rich people, can we?—outlawing abortion and thereby forcing rape victims to go through the agony of giving birth to their assailant's child, removing child benefit from families whose children get into trouble at school—that proposal was condemned by the Bishop of Reading—and branding all homosexuals as immoral and evil.
The list goes on. If it has a familiar ring, that is because it is the manifesto of the hard-line, right-wing No Turning Back group. I trust that that political doctrine was well and truly buried on 1 May 1997.
I shall deal now with my constituency and the town of Reading as a whole. It may be a town, but in reality it is a city and deserves city status as the capital of the Thames

valley. Four years ago, the council, of which I was a member, led the campaign for Reading to be granted city status. We hope that that wish will soon be realised.
Reading has an impressive history, sometimes a bad press but a great future. The early settlements grew up at the junction of the Holy Brook and the River Kennet. The Domesday book records that we boasted six mills, five fisheries and a nunnery, which I am sure was useful. In 1121, Henry I founded Reading abbey. Later in that century and in the centuries that followed, Reading was a regular venue when Parliament assembled outside London, often because of plagues in London. I offer Reading as a venue should we get round to rebuilding this place and need a temporary venue for our Parliament.
Elizabeth I granted the town its first royal charter. A mayor was appointed—not elected—and was served by burgesses, but, for the life of me, I do not know what they were or what they did. The civil war was disastrous for Reading. The town changed hands several times from king to roundhead, much like today's two-party politics. The 18th century brought an improvement in communications. The canal was completed from Reading to Newbury and the roads were improved and became a great coaching route to Bath.
The 19th century witnessed the growth of industry—beer, biscuits and bulbs—the three Bs for which Reading became known. These great companies were Simonds the beer, Sutton's the bulbs and Huntley and Palmer's the biscuits. Sadly, only beer remains but I can commend a pint of Courage Best to anyone in need of either a hangover or a laxative.
Reading has attracted bad press, despite its wonderful location at the junction of two rivers in the heart of the Thames valley and on the edge of the Chilterns. In his classic book "Three Men in a Boat", Jerome K. Jerome said of the town:
We came in sight of Reading about eleven. The river is dirty and dismal here. One does not linger in the neighbourhood of Reading.
Other commentators have described our town as the most boring and average town in Britain and as a dull, dirty and uninteresting place. That is simply not the case, as I am sure Sir Anthony would agree. Our detractors are blinkered or out of date.
Reading is a town with a tremendous future. It is a popular place to live. In a recent survey it was voted the eighth best town in which to work and play. It is in the top 25 per cent. for average household earnings. It has a high degree of economic activity. It is in the heart of silicon valley and generates new jobs in the high tech and communications industries. It has superb sports and leisure facilities and, of course, its famous festivals. It has a lively town centre.
We may have a bad press from time to time, but we have good local newspapers. I am pleased that the Reading Chronicle has emphasised its pride in Reading and has recently launched a Pride in Reading campaign which highlights the growing night life in the town and our new football stadium, which Reading football club will move into next year. Our local team was only four minutes away from glory in the premiership until we lost against Bolton, but perhaps we should not dwell on that for too long.
We have prominent local business activity in firms such as Microsoft, Prudential, Yellow Pages, Foster Wheeler and Digital. An ever-growing number of firms are keen to


invest in Reading. Work has started on our £200 million Oracle shopping development. We have pride in our town and our weekly newspaper reflects that, as does our daily newspaper, the Reading Evening Post, which has sponsored many campaigns such as our successful empty homes strategy.
The main argument that I want to advance this morning is the urgent need not just to modernise the arcane workings of the House but radically to overhaul our entire political system. It is a matter of debate whether we need to mark the millennium with a PVC-coated dome, but I am sure that we need to equip our society for the 21st century with a new politics, new political structures and a political system that connects with the public and their aspirations.
We need a political system that is modern, relevant and efficient and which encourages people from all walks of life to put themselves forward for public office. Not to make the change, not to have the courage to pursue the radical constitutional and political agenda, will result in further decline in the reputation of Parliament and of politics and politicians in general. For many of us, the nightmare scenario is an American political system with a 50 per cent. turnout and an increasingly alienated and disfranchised electorate.
It will not be easy for me or my party, with its large majority, to pursue the agenda of political reform with vigour. In my heart, I am a tribalist. I know the songs, the slogans and the war dances of party politics. In my head, however, I know that the two-party system has had its day. It is confrontational, absurd and often irrelevant. No party has a monopoly on truth, progress or good ideas.
I urge the Government to pursue the pluralist agenda further. I for one welcome the involvement of the leader of the Liberal Democrats in the Cabinet process and the more controversial involvement of Mr. David Mellor in our new football task force, but those are just small steps down a very long road.
The vision was set out by the then leader of the Labour party, Mr. John Smith. He said at our party conference in Brighton in 1983:
We are proposing nothing less than a new constitution for a new century. I want to lead a Labour government that will introduce the most radical package of constitutional reform ever proposed by any major political party. This I believe will be the battleground of the 1990s as we define the new politics of a new century. Our choice—Labour's choice—is to build a democracy founded on pluralism, participation and justice.
I hope that the new Government will have the courage to turn into reality the dreams and vision of the late John Smith.
There is a powerful case for electoral reform. It will herald a more consensual style of politics, develop the pluralist agenda and reflect more accurately the wishes of the British people at the ballot box. However, I see no sense in having different electoral systems for Scotland, Wales, Europe and Westminster. The acid test for any electoral system is that it is easily understood by the people who use it. I also favour the retention of the constituency link. That is why I will not get involved in esoteric arguments about the rights and wrongs of different systems of proportional representation. Those systems that retain the constituency link—between the Member of Parliament and the people he or she represents—are the systems that we should support.
There is no case at all for the existence of a second Chamber based on the hereditary principle, 75 per cent. of whose Members are there by accident of birth. They had the temerity to inflict 350 defeats on the last Labour Government. During my short time in this place, I have learned that the other place will not inflict 350 defeats on this Labour Government. I believe that there is a case for reforming the second Chamber, but not for its abolition.
I turn now to the reform of the House of Commons. I remind hon. Members—particularly my colleagues on the Government Benches—of the statement in the Labour party policy document "A New Agenda for Democracy", which says:
There is no doubt that the role of the House of Commons is central to realising the objective of creating the bedrock of a pluralist democracy in the UK, and that as the millennium approaches we need to prepare a legislature fit for a new century.
I welcome the first report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. We are now to have a much improved Order Paper: it is no longer in code and I hope it is understandable to hon. Members and to the public. I welcome the suggestions regarding fuller involvement in the legislative process and better timetabling of Bills.
However, there is much more work to be done. I hope that we can have advance notice of business. If my whip for 27 October can tell me roughly what I will be doing in three months' time, I hope that, when Parliament is sitting, we can have some idea of what we shall be doing in three weeks' time—if only to allow us to plan our activities as Members of Parliament and our liaison with constituents. I suggest that the conduct of debate should be regulated and that some sort of time limit should be imposed—except on maiden speeches, of course.
I am happy that there are Privy Counsellors, but should they be privileged Members of Parliament? Should they really have the opportunity to prevent other hon. Members from participating in debates in this Chamber from time to time? As for the voting system, I have lost count of the number of discussions that I have had with senior Members who defend the Lobby system, which they say presents an excellent opportunity to meet Ministers. I am sure that Ministers really want to hear from 400-odd members of the parliamentary Labour party at five past 10, 11 or 12 at night. It is not an effective way of putting our constituents' cases to Ministers and it is not a good use of our time. I hope that the Government will consider electronic voting, proxy voting and other measures that will make our parliamentary lives more efficient and make us less of a laughing stock.
If we dispense with the Lobbies and the Lobby system, I hope that we can extend the Chamber so that it is less confrontational and there is a seat for every Member. I hope also that the Government will examine the hours of work. Most hon. Members have better things to do at 10 or 11 o'clock at night than join in the club atmosphere of this House and traipse through the Lobbies.
There is also the question of the role of Back Benchers—particularly in light of the Government's massive majority. It is regrettable that early-day motions are merely political graffiti. When a third of hon. Members sign an early-day motion—particularly if there is cross-party support—is there not a case for allocating parliamentary time to discuss that obviously important issue on the Floor of the House? We could go much


further and talk about fixed-term Parliaments. I would certainly support any move to outlaw holding local authority elections on the same day as a general election. That emasculates the work of local councils and does not afford a true reflection the electorate's wishes as to whom they want to represent them in Parliament and whom they want to run their councils.
A strong argument has been made—I am nervous as the Whips are in the Chamber—for preventing Whips from being involved in appointing Members to Select Committees. After all, they are Committees of the House that are supposed to scrutinise the actions of the Executive. That argument was put very well by a Member of Parliament who is now a Whip.
I trust that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will reply fully to my points and will press her colleagues in government to pursue this agenda. On 1 May, the Labour party was elected to change the face of British politics. I hope that we can get on with it.

Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and to commend his maiden speech. He was one of the first new Labour Members I talked to on the first day of the new Parliament and we have had many interesting conversations since then. I am quite sure that, as a result of his modest and moderate speech, which caused great excitement on the Government Front Bench—not least on the part of the duty Whip, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice)—he has an exhilarating political career ahead of him.
The hon. Gentleman touched on many issues concerning Reading, the constitution and our parliamentary system. Perhaps it will not surprise hon. Members to learn that I agree with a number of his comments. The hon. Gentleman has a distinguished local government record. He follows Sir Anthony Durant as Member of Parliament for Reading, West—about whom he made some very nice comments—so he has a considerable act to follow. I think that he is aware of that fact.
The hon. Gentleman is also aware of the constituency connections that seem to be creeping into the debate. Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that you represented the Middleton and Prestwich constituency in a previous incarnation—as was alluded to earlier. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who is sitting behind me, won the seat of Reading—which then comprised the whole town of Readin—in 1959. He has reminded me of the considerable struggle that lies ahead for the hon. Gentleman, who will obviously fight for the interests of his constituents and of all the people of Reading.
The hon. Gentleman made certain historical allusions in his speech and he will know that Reading was a royal headquarters during the civil war. I gather that the royalty of the day walked off with the Reading civic silver—royalty are not supposed to behave in that manner, but sometimes they do—which, somehow or other, ended up in Windsor castle. It remained at the castle through the Cromwellian period and the Restoration and is still there. The town of Reading has made various requests for the return of the silver, but it remains in royal hands. I hope

that the hon. Gentleman will make its recovery a priority so that it may play a major part in the egalitarianism of future constitutional reform.

Mr. Salter: I am slightly worried that the hon. Gentleman is inciting me to commit an act of treason.

Mr. Temple-Morris: I judge from his maiden speech that the hon. Gentleman is well capable of dealing with the issue of treason and any other issue. I am sure that the institution of the House will look after him in that regard.
I value the opportunity to speak in the debate. Many hon. Members want to speak; these occasions are useful as they enable us to raise matters of concern to us, to the House and to our constituents. I want to raise a matter that concerns my constituency: agriculture and the beef industry. Leominster, in the county of Hereford, has 700 sq miles of rural land with two and a half traffic lights. When I became its Member of Parliament 24 years ago it had no traffic lights.
In my last speech on the beef industry and agriculture in May 1996—a little more than a year ago—I made two relevant points that I want to repeat now. The first—then, it was almost a plea—was that the BSE crisis should not result in what I called Euro-bashing. It seemed to me that if we depended on an institution such as the EU to get out of a crisis, there was no point in attacking it, let alone not getting on with it. In that regard, I commend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who took that point straight away and worked hard to improve relations, which is particularly relevant to making progress in this matter.
The second point, which in general terms the House has observed, is that there is no necessity for undue party politics on the BSE issue and getting the ban lifted. Controversial points will occasionally be made on behalf of beef producers about this subsidy or that support, but in general we are all in the same boat. We must do the best for our farmers and the best to get the ban lifted. The way to do that is, first, to get on with Europe and, secondly, to recognise that the United Kingdom exacerbated, by its BSE crisis and the press reaction to it, a deeper problem which goes beyond BSE—the consumption of red meat in general and beef in particular. All of us, including our farmers, must acknowledge that European beef producers and the EU market as a whole are, if anything, in a worse state than ours.
Addressing the main problem, I shall make four fairly succinct points. First, the problem goes beyond BSE: we are dealing with declining consumption of red meat. That goes right across the EU. I am happy to say that Britain is better than most in that regard. For example, we are dealing with the decline of the family meal—the great Sunday lunch that I continue to enjoy. Good British beef will always sit on the Temple-Morris table, but it will not sit on every table. We are dealing here, I shudder to say, with convenience foods as much as with beef. We are dealing with chicken meat, associated flavourings and all the rest that is found on the sad gastronomic path down which all too many people across Europe appear to have been tempted.
Secondly, we have a problem that is familiar to the agriculture industry—overproduction and structural surplus. An appalling problem is building up. EU intervention stocks of beef, including ours, could reach no less than 2 million tonnes by 2001 and 4 million tonnes by 2006.
Thirdly, we have the continuation of the general agreement on tariffs and trade reforms and the resulting progressive squeeze on subsidised exports to the third world and other countries.
Fourthly, we have increasing national and EU financial constraints on subsidies to farmers allied to the major question of the reform of the CAP and the overall financial priorities of the EU, not least when it is concerned with enlargement.
I can make my next four points briefly because an Adjournment debate is coming up later in which my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) will raise them and an Agriculture Minister will deal with them—no doubt much to the relief of the Leader of the House who has quite enough on her plate already.
First, I welcome the Europewide scheme we have succeeded in obtaining for the removal of the specified risk materials from beef, which means that we can control imports. They have been coming in at the rate of 160,000 tonnes a year, which will have an effect on market prices, not least for the farmer.
Secondly, domestic consumption is up. We have made a remarkably good recovery and I believe that we are almost up to pre-BSE levels.
Thirdly, I welcome, as I am sure will all hon. Members, the decision by McDonald's and Burger King once again to take British beef. I wish that it had come sooner, but at least it has come now.
Fourthly, I welcome the advances that have been made in getting the traceability scheme up and running. I was encouraged by a recent Government statement that we can expect that as a reality by early 1998—the sooner the better, but we need to make progress on the exemption from the ban of certified herds. That is the vital area. Last year, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) did a great deal of work on the matter and he knows its importance. We need to obtain a progressive lifting of the ban. To get the ball rolling, I stress that it is vital that we concentrate on the certified herds, but we must also settle the overall direction of policy towards the industry, making it more competitive and less subsidised.
One central point as, inevitably, we go down the competitive and less subsidised path is that we must give farmers time to adapt along the way. Too quick a change could spell disaster for the countryside. There is a future for the British beef industry. The industry accepts that there will be change, but it needs to be given a firm direction and sufficient direction to have confidence in its future.

Mr. Martin Caton: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Bedford (Mr. Hall), for Burton (Mrs. Dean) for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). All showed a tremendous commitment to the constituencies that they now represent and a determination to fight for their constituents. I look forward to working in partnership with them in the years ahead.
I was keen to speak today because I want to help to correct the impression beginning to be created—partly, I am afraid, by those on the Labour Benches—that the

Labour party in Wales is seriously divided on the Government's plans to create a Welsh Assembly. If all the Labour Members of Parliament from Wales who oppose democratic devolution and all those with serious reservations about specific parts of the policy are combined, they total just six—six out of 34—and only half that number are totally opposed to the creation of a Welsh Assembly.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, in 1979, only six Labour Members of Parliament were opposed to devolution and the Welsh people voted four to one against devolution?

Mr. Caton: The hon. Gentleman brings me to my next point. The great difference between 1979 and now is the attitude of the Labour movement in Wales. It is fair to say that, in 1979, the movement was split from top to bottom; it was seriously divided. That does not happen now, because the policy that has been spelt out in the White Paper is not the product of civil servants in Gwydyr house or Cathays park; it is the product of the Labour party in Wales. It is itself a product of real devolution.
We, the people of Wales, involved in the Labour party, developed that policy through our policy commission, our conferences and in consultation with the people of Wales. We came to that policy, we put it to the people on 1 May and they voted for it. That is why we do not have the same situation that we had in 1979.

Mr. Paul Flynn: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend's remarks. In 1979, almost a majority of Welsh Members of Parliament were opposed to devolution, because in those days there were Conservative Members in Wales. The position now is that, out of 40 Welsh Members of Parliament, only three will vote against, three are lukewarm and 34 will campaign enthusiastically for the thrilling Welsh Assembly that we are about to create.

Mr. Caton: I thank my hon. Friend for making those valuable points.
I have listened carefully to the arguments against the proposals in "A Voice for Wales" that have been made in the House and outside it. Opponents of a Welsh Assembly fall into three broad camps: the myopic utopians, the "what-if-ers" and the Chicken Licken tendency, although some people are clearly in more than one of those camps.
Myopic utopians apparently believe that we live in the most perfect of all possible constitutions, and that our existing structure of government cannot be improved in any way. They are completely blind to the glaring democratic deficit that now exists in the governance of Wales. They point to the Public Accounts Select Committee, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the Welsh Grand Committee and Welsh Question Time and they ask, "Is that not accountability enough for you?" Frankly, the answer is no. As valuable as those democratic vehicles were and are, they have not and could not properly and fully scrutinise the work of the Welsh Office and the public bodies in Wales or provide policy initiatives in all areas of their responsibility.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. I have seen


a deterioration in the scrutiny of the Welsh Office during the 20 years that I have been in the House. Does he agree that one of the ways in which the system is breaking down is that, at Welsh Question Time, non-Welsh Members table questions and thereby dictate the agenda? Welsh Members need to ask questions of Welsh Office Ministers on many subjects, but we cannot do so because we are unable to get on the list for questions.

Mr. Caton: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have been in the House a far shorter time than he, but even in that short time I, as a representative of Wales, have felt that same frustration at not being able to hold our Executive accountable. I certainly agree with his point. Decisions on how £7 billion of spending by the Welsh Office is allocated should be made by directly elected representatives of all the people living in Wales. It is as simple and as straightforward as that.
The "what-if-ers" are another kettle of fish. They fear what the Assembly might do. What if its south Wales members get together and distort allocation of resources? What if its north Wales members get together and get excessive attention given to the Welsh language? What if it ends up full of retired councillors who starve the health service so as to put money into local authorities? What if, what if, what if! I think that the Assembly will behave fairly and rationally, and will be encouraged to do so by the structures and approach outlined in the White Paper.
If we are honest, we have to admit that democracy does not guarantee good government. If we did not know that before, we learned it in the 18 years to 1 May. Democracy does not guarantee good government, but it provides the best chance of good government. If I had to make a choice between leaving decisions about the future of Wales to a Secretary of State who, as we have seen, may have no connection with Wales and an Assembly directly elected by the Welsh people, I know which I would choose, and which is more likely to make the right decisions for the whole of Wales.
The third category of opponents is the Chicken Licken tendency, and that is where the official Opposition seem to position themselves. Hon. Members will remember that an acorn fell on Chicken Licken's head and she told everyone that the sky was falling in. This time the acorn of accountability has fallen on the head of Quibble Ribble, and he is running about, saying, "Not only is the sky coming down, but the country is falling apart. Oh dear, oh dear."
The Opposition claim that the creation of a Welsh Assembly threatens the future of the United Kingdom, and that it is the first step on the road to secession. That analysis of the facts is as distorted as Chicken Licken's explanation of her sore head; it is ludicrous. The White Paper makes it clear that we are talking not about devolving more power to Wales and the Welsh Office from Westminster or Whitehall, but about democratising the considerable powers that have already been transferred.
It is difficult to understand how anyone who believes in democracy can oppose this measure. Everyone seems to accept the need for a different approach to government in Wales. I did not see one manifesto or election address from any party or individual campaigning in Wales that called for the closure of the Welsh Office or even a reduction in its powers. We can only assume that there is common ground on devolution: it is democracy that is in dispute.
To be honest, I understand the logic of the argument for not having a Secretary of State and for bringing public services in Wales under the relevant English Ministries. I would oppose that, but I would understand it because it would be a way of creating a direct, democratic pathway of accountability. What is more difficult to comprehend is the position that recognises the need for devolved Welsh government but denies the demand that it be made directly and democratically accountable to the people of Wales. In my opinion, that denial is more likely to undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom.
Like many of my colleagues, this summer I shall engage with the myopic utopians, the "what-if-ers" and the Chicken Lickens in what I hope will be a friendly debate about the future of Wales, but I hope to spend more time talking to the people in my constituency and in other parts of Wales. They know that the structure of Welsh government has not delivered the goods for them, and I shall urge them to use their vote for change on 18 September, so that it can in the future.

Mr. Nigel Evans: I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about a report in The Sunday Times that the Labour Government propose to pour tonnes of concrete over the countryside in England, Wales, Scotland and, I assume, Northern Ireland to provide more homes. I shall make only a short contribution, because many hon. Members want to participate in the debate.
I speak on behalf of not only the United Kingdom as a whole, but my constituency of Ribble Valley, 75 per cent. of which is an area of outstanding natural beauty. In maiden speeches this morning, hon. Members have spoken at length about the beauty of their constituencies. I speak with emotion about the beauty of my constituency. It is beautiful and I wish it to remain so. The last thing that I want is a change in Government policy that will result in thousands of homes being built on green-field sites in my constituency.
William Blake's "Jerusalem" talks of those feet in ancient times that walked upon England's pastures green. That may well have been written about the Ribble valley. In 20 years' time, it may have to be rewritten to talk of those feet in modern times that walk upon England's built-up areas and industrial estates. That does not have quite the same ring, does it? I hope that the Leader of the House will refute the plans for extra homes that were mentioned in The Sunday Times.
We have heard that 2 million extra homes may be built in the countryside. That would be a complete nightmare. The Council for the Protection of Rural England says that a quarter of a million acres of countryside are flooded by concrete every year. That is a dramatic figure, and it would be appalling if it were to be increased. Imagine how much worse it would be if Labour allowed building on green-field sites throughout the country. I do not dispute the fact that additional housing is required, but I take issue with the plans that were reported in The Sunday Times this weekend. Once again, the Labour party has proved that it does not understand the countryside and hates the rural way of life.
The comments of the Minister for London and Construction betrayed the Government's commitment to green politics. The Prime Minister's words about his commitment to the Rio declaration and to the environment can be put to one side if these plans go ahead.
There are many small villages in my constituency. The NIMBY factor—"not in my backyard"—is not involved, because small villages, such as Ribchester, have already given way to extra houses. Two hundred houses were built at Barrow, Longridge has had extra homes and quite a number of houses have been built in the small market town of Clitheroe. There are also extra houses in Sawley and Fulwood, which is in the urban part of my constituency, in Preston. As its name suggests, Fulwood was once a wood, but now it is just full. Only about four green plots of land are available, and already the developers want to build on them.
Another problem—which is not unique to the Ribble valley—is caused by the sites of old psychiatric hospitals, although I do not think that anyone has a problem with the idea of building on the "footprints" of those old hospitals. There are three such sites in my constituency, and permission has been given for the building of about 450 houses on one of them. At least 150 houses will be built on the second site, and an application has been made to build several hundred on the third. If the developments go ahead, they will affect nearby villages dramatically, altering their character.
Developers talk about planning gain, saying that, if they are given the opportunity to build all those extra houses, the infrastructure will be improved. Perhaps there will be another school, a better bus service and a chemist. People who move into small villages, however, do so for specific reasons. They enjoy the countryside and the quiet; there seems to be less lawlessness in rural areas than in urban areas. The planning gain lies in the fact that there are not all those extra houses. We should take that into account before developing more land.
There is also the problem of transport. If we build more houses in the countryside, more roads will be needed to meet the demand that will be caused by all the extra cars. People want to live in the countryside because of the quiet, and people want to visit it for the same reason. The last thing that such people want is to see not only 2 million extra houses but millions of extra cars clogging up our countryside.
Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world. Last year, more than 24 million tourists came to this country from abroad. Many did not just visit London, but went into the countryside to see our small villages and enjoy the beauty of, for instance, small rural churches. Surely the last thing that we want to do is turn our green fields into one massive building site. People will not wish to come here from abroad to visit one large building site. We are in danger of creating millions of new Swampys who will fight the proposals throughout the country, not just in certain parts of it. What about all the derelict houses in big cities such as Manchester and Liverpool? Thousands of houses are empty, for whatever reason, regardless of whether they are controlled privately or by local authorities. All those houses must be brought into use.
I spent 30 years living above a shop in Swansea. There are still many vacant properties over shops in cities and towns. Let us bring all those properties into use before we start turning our green-field sites into yet more housing estates.
There are two more problems in the countryside. I refer to telecommunications masts, the subject of which has been raised before on the Adjournment, and wind turbines, about which I myself have spoken on the Adjournment. We must give more regard to the countryside. It is not just an asset for us to enjoy; it is an asset which we must preserve for countless generations to enjoy in the future. I hope that the Government will give us some reassurances today.

Mr. Harry Barnes: The beauty of listening to debates such as this is that we learn things from other hon. Members. Sometimes, we can convey what we have learnt to constituents who come to us with problems. For instance, I have learnt from my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) where the lantern is that was snatched from Guy Fawkes. When some primary schoolchildren wrote to me about Guy Fawkes, I had to do some research in order to answer their questions, but I was unable to answer one question: what had happened to the lantern? Now, however, I can respond to the children of Renishaw primary school.
I have learnt many other things during today's debate. I did not know, for example, that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) had fought Nicholas Bennett at the last general election. That reminded me of a debate that took place here one Friday. Before the Jopling reforms, we used to be able to put in for the chance to lead debates on various motions. One such debate was led by Neil Hamilton, and was entitled "The future of socialism". It was the first occasion on which there had been a solid debate in the House about socialism as a general theory since the days of Philip Snowden. Finally, Nicholas Bennett raised a point of order, because I had been talking for even longer than my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West—partly to prevent Nicholas Bennett from speaking. The debate was largely taken over by Labour Members, particularly members of the socialist Campaign group.
We should have more opportunities to engage in debates of that kind. We should not have to depend on Front Benchers or on Opposition days. Neil Hamilton did the House a valuable service that day.
Hon. Members have raised questions relating to the future of democracy, and I think that it would be useful to have a debate on that. Democratic socialists are interested in that subject: it is part of their socialist vision. Let me develop one or two of the views that have been expressed today. Unfortunately, it is not easy to deal with such big issues in a short speech; we really need a fuller debate.
One massive problem affecting democracy is the European Union. I am not opposed to the European Union itself, but I feel that it should be reformed and developed. It is clearly a bureaucratic, centralising structure, with much of its power and authority derived from "creeping competences". An interesting report on road safety produced by the Select Committee on European Legislation illustrates the division and transfer of power between our Parliament and the European Union. The report shows how power slips from the national parliament to the European Union, and is relevant to many issues besides road safety.
Ultimately, the Council of Ministers—which is still far too secretive—makes decisions over the heads of the national parliaments. Its members do deals among themselves. Our ability to scrutinise the measures that result from those decisions is limited. We should extend the work of the Standing Committees that examine European legislation, and extend the authority of the Select Committee, which does valiant work in difficult circumstances.
It is claimed that the European Union has been opened up and that there is more transparency—that we can see what goes on in meetings of the Council of Ministers, and obtain a few details about voting. That has not been done very effectively, however. The much-vaunted principle of subsidiarity, which holds that legislation should be dealt with at national level wherever possible, has no significant legal import. It is inadequate in terms of explaining who does what and showing national authority. A much more sensible way of achieving that would be a system of clear division and an overall constitution. Such a structure would be federalist, but it does not have to be centralised: arrangements could be drafted to avoid that.
We must grasp the fact that democracy is slipping away from us towards Europe and that many important decisions are made without parliamentary checks and balances. All power should go to parliaments—the European Parliament dealing with European matters and national parliaments dealing with the business that is appropriate to nation states. Many actions need to be taken to advance the powers of parliaments in relation to the Executives. European matters should be decided by the European Parliament, which should not be a mere consultative assembly. There have been nudges towards improving matters, but we are still far short of what is required.
I should like to see a fully fledged, federal, social and democratic Europe. It is only when people have the vote to appoint representatives and, therefore, the power to control and check them that they get the actions that are important to them. That is how the House developed provisions such as the welfare state. The franchise and, therefore, democracy were fully extended, but current arrangements are allowing many such advances to slip away.
Our democracy has many shortcomings and we need to put our own house in order. Some hon. Members spoke about that when discussing Wales and Scotland. Some of our actions have allowed the franchise to slip away. Many people are missing from the electoral register and we need an up-to-date, modern system that will bring about a full franchise—for example, homeless people should be placed on the electoral register.
Parliament must be jealous of the operation of its powers. Labour Members are moving into a new situation and, as it develops, Back Benchers will start to flex their muscles and prod the Executive a bit more. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I have some sympathy with Opposition conclusions, but not with the way in which they put their arguments. When I was in opposition, I observed some hypocrisy in government.
There should be more statements in the House and we should be careful about the operation of guillotines. The procedure should be structured and they should not imposed before there has been proper debate. We should not encourage non-question times, by which I mean

underarm bowling to elicit predetermined answers. However, that is not new: it happened under the Conservative Government. Labour Back Benchers should not be too soft on the Government; nor should we be hard on them all the time, looking them in the eye and sticking them with an issue, as we did when we were in opposition. We must be much more sophisticated in pushing our concerns and getting Executive answers. We must remember that we are elected to serve our constituents.
Much more needs to be done in the democratic game. Much has been said about local government having adequate finances. Altering the standard spending assessment formula would confer a massive advantage in that respect. Ian Mikardo was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West who also spoke about world government. A democratic structure within the European Union could be a framework for extension and development. One of the world's problems is the unanswerable power of capitalism in multinational companies whose operations cross many boundaries. We need political frameworks that will counter such powers.
We should think about the great democratic task in which we often fail to get involved. It is as if we have been through the franchise struggles of the 19th and early 20th centuries and think that we have sorted out the basics of democracy and need to attend to only a few changes here and there. We need to work at democracy all the time, or it will slip away unnoticed. Fresh forms of bureaucracy and dictatorship and other sorts of control may seep into political systems unless we keep a continual eye on the game.

Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), in his inimitable way, has taken us from European federalism to world government in about 10 minutes. He made a robust speech in which he dared to mention socialism, for which he deserves the thanks and congratulations of us all. The four hon. Members who deserve special congratulations are those who made their maiden speeches.
This debate, which has been slightly changed by Jopling, originally took place over three hours before each recess to discuss why the House should not adjourn. Hon. Members would give reasons for special debates and say why the House should not adjourn until those debates had taken place. So many topics have been aired this morning in 13 diverse and interesting speeches that the House would sit almost until 27 October if the Leader of the House acceded to all the requests. I shall not endorse such requests and I hope that the right hon. Lady will allow us to go tomorrow after a fairly exhausting time in recent months.
I return to the four maiden speeches. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) made a brave plea for the name of his constituency to be changed. No doubt those who deliberate on such matters will note what he said because he made a strong, if not an unanswerable, case. The hon. Gentleman paid a gracious tribute to his predecessor, Sir Trevor Skeet, and we are grateful to him for that because Sir Trevor endeared himself to hon. Members throughout the House. He was first elected to the House in 1959 and therefore had a long parliamentary pedigree. The hon. Member for Bedford also said how concerned


he was about the workings of the Child Support Agency. That concern is shared and has been voiced in all parts of the House for a considerable time.
We heard an interesting historical maiden speech, entirely non-controversial, from the hon. Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean), a fellow Staffordshire Member. She talked with understandable pride about the brewing industry and with equally understandable pride about Uttoxeter race course. She also mentioned the marathon speech-making abilities of her predecessor, Sir Ivan Lawrence, who is much missed on the Conservative Benches and who rendered the House a signal service by the way in which he chaired the Select Committee on Home Affairs.
Listening to the maiden speech by the hon. Member for the new constituency of Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin), I wondered as I heard those rich Scottish tones whether, if and when the Scottish Parliament is established, so many English constituency associations will be willing to make the wise decision that his obviously did and choose a Scottish representative.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the gunpowder plot and the lantern, and we heard about the mutiny on the Bounty too. His speech was a veritable tour de force. He also made proper reference to his predecessor for part of the constituency, "Gentleman Jim" Callaghan—"Little Jim" as he called him. The hon. Gentleman also talked about the important links between local and central government. I shall not follow his slightly more provocative remarks, but most of his speech was certainly in the tradition of non-controversial maiden speeches.
I am not entirely sure that I can say the same about the longest of the maiden speeches that we heard this morning, by the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter). As I listened to him, I could not help but recall the fact that I had the singular distinction of having to congratulate the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) on his maiden speech. I remember, way back in 1970, saying that I rather thought that the House might hear from him again. I suspect that the House will also hear quite a lot from the hon. Member for Reading, West, and I am sure that even if we do not agree with it we shall be entertained, and sometimes perhaps provoked, by it.
The hon. Gentleman paid a generous tribute to Sir Anthony Durant, for which we are grateful. He is a most convivial man, as the hon. Gentleman said, and he was always a redoubtable spokesman for his constituency of Reading, for which he had an enormous affection—an affection clearly shared by the hon. Gentleman who now represents that seat.
I was a little concerned by the fact that after only three months here the hon. Gentleman wants to modernise the entire system. I sometimes say to new colleagues that one must not assume that everything that was done before was decided by imbeciles or that things have evolved for no specific reason. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will become absorbed into our ways to some degree and will make a positive contribution to our debates.
We heard several other interesting speeches, including the unusual novelty, in such debates, of a speech from the Front Bench, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who made what I am sure the Leader of the House will agree

was an admirably brief speech about the Government's desire to have an ethical foreign policy. We would all entirely endorse that desire, of course, but my right hon. and learned Friend pointed out some of the contradictions that have been evident in statements emanating from the Foreign Office in recent weeks. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will take an early opportunity to enlighten the House and share with us some of his detailed thoughts on a range of complex issues.
It is wonderful the way in which such debates vary from the great and global to the local. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) very properly took the opportunity to make a plea for his local hospital, the St. Helier hospital in Carshalton. I understand from the hon. Gentleman that the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), was born in that hospital, so that is an added reason why what the hon. Gentleman said should be taken carefully into account by the Secretary of State.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) deserted, for once, his campaign directed at the Child Support Agency—a campaign for which we all pay him tribute. Today, he made a powerful speech in favour of an energy policy, which illustrated how important it is that the House should not neglect the coal industry. As one who represents a constituency that has seen its coal mines close, I have some fellow feeling with what the hon. Gentleman said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) also spoke. Despite the request by the Leader of the House, I shall not touch on the point about submarines but will leave it for her to deal with. My hon. Friend made an important speech, drawing on his considerable knowledge as Chairman of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which deals with delegated legislation.
My hon. Friend talked in particular about the implications of devolution. If we have a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, how will secondary legislation be dealt with? What will be the intricate relations with the House of Commons? That is an important subject which deserves careful and detailed consideration and a most careful answer.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) talked about the report of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons. I echo his genuine tribute to the Leader of the House, who has chaired that Committee with exemplary skill and impartiality. I also echo his wish that all members of the present Government would take a leaf out of the right hon. Lady's book and behave towards the House with a respect that, while never veering into subservience, shows a true respect for its position and its traditions, and that they would not bypass the House when making announcements. The right hon. Lady may be too modest to talk to her colleagues about that, but I hope that her colleagues will take what has been said carefully to heart.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) talked about the beef industry, and made a strong plea, which I second, for the continuation of the Sunday lunch.
The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Caton) talked about utopia as though we believed that utopia existed now. I remind him that it was a fantasy that existed in the mind


of a great man. With the hon. Gentleman's views on devolution, I think that he is conjuring up a fantasy utopia of his own that will not come to pass.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) made an eloquent Welsh plea for the maintenance of the green belt and the green and pleasant land that so many parts of this country still are. I am sure that that struck a responsive chord with most of us.
We have had a wide-ranging and diverse debate, as we usually do on such occasions. The summer Adjournment debates constitute one of the traditions of the House with which no Modernisation Committee should wish to tamper. It is important that, from time to time, Members should have such open sessions, to which they can come and air their views, and indeed their prejudices, and make pleas for local causes and express their concern about national causes.
Such debates are always difficult for any Leader of the House to sum up. Having taken part in them from the Back Benches many times, I am well aware of that. I am finishing my speech at the precise time that I promised to, so I hope that in her response the right hon. Lady will be able to make at least some reference to the Modernisation Committee, as well as to the speeches that have been made.

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): As usual in a summer Adjournment debate, we have had a wide range of contributions, with many hon. Members wishing to participate. Many have sat here throughout the debate, some of them without having had the opportunity to speak. That proves that there is a need for such debates.
I will try to deal with as many as possible of the points that have been raised, especially those raised by Members who have been in the Chamber throughout. If I miss anything, I will either write to hon. Members or arrange for colleagues to do so.
I shall start by mentioning the maiden speeches that have been made today. They have all been different in terms of style and content, but they have proved to those of us who have been in the House for some time that the quality of the new Members elected at the recent general election is very high.
The confidence of new Members seems to increase with each intake. I well remember my maiden speech, and also my second "maiden" speech, if I may use that term, in 1987. In those days, people did not approach maiden speeches with such confidence, and I congratulate the Members who after such a short time in the House have managed to do that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) clearly has used the last three months well to assess the issues of main concern to his constituents. He highlighted one problem area which all of us would echo—the problems of those facing difficulty with the Child Support Agency. We all agree on that matter, and the Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons—to which the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) referred—has often used the CSA as an example of where Parliament could have done a better job had we approached our work differently. We all need to learn from such problems and examples, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) gave us a treat when describing her constituency. I could see hon. Members' ears prick up when she mentioned that her constituency included four breweries and one race course, and she invited everybody there for the recess. She may have many takers. She caused a great deal of relief by saying that she would not speaking for as long as her predecessor, and I am sure that she will get other opportunities to catch the Speaker's eye because of her brevity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) inherited the seat of a close friend of mine, Jim Callaghan, who came to this House on the same day as I did many years ago. My hon. Friend raised important constituency interests, particularly the relationship between local and central Government. We must all be conscious of the tensions in that relationship and encourage people to work together. He also mentioned the need for democratic renewal, a theme which was picked up by several hon. Members. I shall return to that matter at the end of my remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) was, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, more controversial in some of his remarks, although not in terms of his praise for his predecessor, Sir Anthony Durant. My hon. Friend proved that he is as sociable and convivial as his predecessor and that he is willing to talk to Members on both sides of the House. That should stand him in good stead. He may not wish to be told this, but he reminded me of one of the highlights of recent years—the Reading versus Bolton Wanderers match. I was on the other side from my hon. Friend, and I thought that that most extraordinary match ended satisfactorily, although I am afraid that my hon. Friend may not agree.
I can agree with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West about renewing democracy, and the Modernisation Committee has taken many matters on board. He talked about the conduct of debates in this House, and the Committee agreed that that item would be a part of our inquiries later in the year. We will report in due course.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) raised the issue of vitamin B6, and we have all received letters on that topic. He suggested that my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, might not understand the pressures attached to the issue. My hon. Friend has a good reputation for listening to people and for taking all evidence on board, and he will do that when answering the representations made to him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) raised an issue that he has raised on more than one occasion at business questions—energy policy—and referred specifically to German coal subsidies. I hope that he will not mind if I write to him in greater detail on this issue, which causes some concerns. The Government are pursuing with the Commission and the German Government subsidies given to German coal producers. My hon. Friend has a long-term interest in coal which comes from his background and that of his constituency. He shares some of my concerns about opencast mining, which may threaten both our constituencies.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) mentioned an issue that he has raised on one or two occasions in this House—St. Helier hospital.


He has had correspondence with me on that topic, and he asked me to convey his grave concerns to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, and I shall do so. The Government recognise that there are difficulties. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of all the recent developments, but I will make sure that my right hon. Friend updates him in the next week or two.
Other issues were mentioned, including the Welsh Assembly. It is useful to have a debate such as this so that anybody who could not take part in earlier debates—such as Friday's—can come here and speak today. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) raised interesting questions about house building and putting concrete across our countryside, as he put it. We all have concerns about how we balance the need to build more houses and the need to protect the countryside, but he did not have to include political gibes. Basically, the Conservative Government faced exactly the same problems and we are restating the targets adopted by that Government. There are genuine problems and I should have thought that a genuine discussion across the Floor would be better than scoring political points.
I apologise to anyone whose points I have not mentioned, but I wish to use my final few minutes to refer to our democracy and, in particular, to our parliamentary procedures. This issue was raised by Members on both sides, and my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) put it in a wider context. Other colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West, mentioned it as well.
The hon. Member for Bosworth, who has a particular interest in statutory instruments, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), who has great experience as a member of the Modernisation Committee and of the Procedure Committee, and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire will all be aware that we published the first reports of the Modernisation Committee yesterday. That is a useful step forward, but we would not want our recommendations to be the be-all and end-all of

parliamentary reform or modernisation. Modernisation of the House is a process, not an event. It is continuing, and we have made constructive suggestions, some of which the right hon. Member for East Devon outlined.
The Committee has made practical suggestions—such as changing the Order Paper—which prove our sound intentions to tackle some of the problems that have been around for a long time but which may not have been taken on board. There is a genuine mood in the House of Commons that we need a change in the way in which we operate. It is important that we keep the best of our traditions in terms of genuine debate, the established principle of holding the Government to account and making sure that legislation is properly scrutinised, but there is great scope for improving the way in which we operate. Our objective as a Committee has been to try to make suggestions to improve legislation and to make better use of the time of hon. Members. In other words, we want to make Parliament more effective but also more efficient. Our proposals are a part of the way to do so.
I understand that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire has had to be discharged from the Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons so that he can serve on another Committee. I must take this opportunity to thank him for the work that he did on the Committee. It may come as a surprise—to outsiders at least—to know that the work of that Committee was constructive and positive on both sides. There was not a straightforward party divide, which is the normal impression people have of everything that goes on in the House. If people of different political parties agree, they should say so. Just as we say so when we disagree. If we could get over that basic principle, we would make progress and move forward.
This has been an important debate. The right hon. Member for East Devon asked about the Modernisation Committee report and I can assure him that we will have an early debate on it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We now come to the next debate.

Sprinkler Systems (Superstores)

Ms Tess Kingham: I am grateful to have the opportunity to make my maiden speech on a subject on which I feel strongly and which has directly affected people in my constituency—the fire safety of supermarkets and superstores and whether it should be compulsory for them to install fire sprinkler systems.
I am privileged to represent Gloucester—a fine city which has undergone many changes in its history. Just this year, we are celebrating the 900th anniversary of Glevum, the Roman colonia set up where present-day Gloucester now stands. Every year, we host thousands of visitors who come to admire Gloucester's heritage—our wonderful Norman cathedral, the refurbished Victorian docks and the best-preserved friary in England, the Blackfriars friary, to name just a few of our attractions.
Gloucester is not merely a tourist attraction; it is a thriving working city. It was traditionally known for railway carriage and aircraft manufacturing but today, because of our strategic location and good communications and, of course, our wonderful people, we are managing to attract businesses from all over the world to relocate to our fine city. In recent years, we have benefited in particular from the relocation of financial institutions and a good deal of light industry.
Gloucester is also similar to any other major town and city in Britain today in that we have a plethora of new superstores blooming along our trunk roads. They are welcome because they contribute to the local economy and provide jobs, but the fire safety of those superstores and supermarkets concerns me, and that is the reason for today's debate.
In May last year, a major fire broke out at the MFI superstore on Eastern avenue in Gloucester. The building was not fitted with a fire sprinkler system. The fire soon got out of control and engulfed the building. It took 100 firefighters and 15 pumps working throughout the night to control that blaze. Luckily, no one was injured, but the cost was high. More than £5 million worth of damage was done to the building and stock and there was major pollution of the environment in the neighbouring area, damage to neighbouring superstores and a considerable cost to the public purse for the rescue operation.
At that time, I was the prospective parliamentary candidate in Gloucester. I was shocked to discover that it is not compulsory for supermarkets and superstores to install sprinkler systems when they are built. Along with other members of the public, I had assumed that such action would be a matter of course. Under current legislation—British standard 5588, part 2, 1985—fire sprinkler systems are merely recommended.
Since being elected, I have looked into the issue in some detail and I am firmly of the belief that it should be compulsory for sprinkler systems to be installed in all new, warehouse-style, single-storey buildings over 2,000 sq m used for commercial purposes. That definition would encompass the majority of new superstores and if that proposal were implemented, it could help to avert future disasters and potential loss of life.
The arguments for making sprinkler systems compulsory are compelling. First, all evidence shows that sprinkler systems work. Statistics from Australia,

New Zealand, the United States of America and the United Kingdom show that sprinkler systems, if they are properly maintained and operational, will control between 95 and 99 per cent. of all fires in the early stages. That is because they are area specific. That means that sprinklers are activated only in the immediate area of the fire, thus attacking the seat of the fire before it has a chance to take hold. If sprinklers are not in use and a fire takes hold, it spreads in area and intensity in between 10 and 20 minutes and becomes what is termed a fully developed fire. At that point, the fire is much more difficult to control and usually requires a full-scale rescue operation of the type that we witnessed at MFI in Gloucester.
Fully developed fires are dangerous and devastating. The lives of firefighters who may have to enter and search unsafe buildings for unaccounted people are put at considerable risk. The main causes of injury and death to firefighters in Britain are flashovers and roof collapses. Those occur in fully developed fires at very high temperatures—the very conditions that fire sprinkler systems are there to inhibit in the first place.
In February 1996, a 21-year-old firefighter, Fleur Lombard, was tragically killed by a flashover when she was fighting a supermarket blaze in Bristol. Fleur's father has been a leading campaigner, calling for compulsory sprinkler systems in superstores. In 1993, two firefighters died when a roof collapsed and, in Dover in 1995, four firefighters were injured in a flashover in a major fire at a B and Q superstore. None of the buildings involved in those incidents had operational sprinkler systems. If they had, the fires could perhaps have been controlled at the early stages and might not have become fully developed fires and reached such an intensity as to become a danger to firefighters' lives.
Fully developed fires also cause environmental damage. Pollutants from burning buildings and materials can be carried by water from firefighters' hoses or expelled directly into the air. Waterborne pollutants from superstore blazes can include such unsavoury things as bleach, fertilisers, paints and dyes and those can accumulate in the soil or find their way into local water supplies. Air pollutants can include carbon monoxide, soot or hydrochloric acid in gaseous form when PVC is burnt.
A final consideration is the financial cost of not installing sprinklers, both to retailers and the public purse. Millions of pounds of retail stock are ruined every year when blazes get out of control and firefighters have no option but to deluge the whole area in tens of thousands of gallons of water. Sprinkler systems can limit that stock damage. They activate only in the immediate area of a fire, which means that, in comparison with the deluge from firefighters' hoses, little water is expelled in the vicinity of the fire and much less stock damage caused. Fire Protection Association statistics claim that five or fewer sprinkler heads extinguish 95 per cent. of all fires. Sprinkler systems are, therefore, cost-effective for retailers and also prevent the high public costs of full-scale rescue operations and all the accompanying paraphernalia that has to go with them.
There is widespread support for compulsory sprinkler systems in the type of buildings that I mentioned. The Loss Prevention Council, the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and the Fire Brigades Union all support the proposal, as do the general public.
After the MFI fire in Gloucester, the Gloucester Citizen, our well-read daily newspaper, ran a lengthy campaign calling for the compulsory installation of sprinkler systems in superstores and supermarkets. The Gloucester people were asked to fill in a coupon and send it back to the newspaper and to their Member of Parliament. They responded enthusiastically, as I did when the matter was brought to my attention.
The campaign also received support from Douglas French, my predecessor, to whom I pay tribute. He faithfully served the city of Gloucester for 10 years and was well known for his willingness to speak out on any issue if he found it to be morally or politically incorrect, or where justice had not been done. He earned great respect in Gloucester. I did not always agree with him, but I admired his integrity and willingness to stand up and be counted.
At present, it is left to individual retailers to decide whether to be responsible and fit sprinkler systems. Some do it as a matter of course, and they should be congratulated; some learn by their mistakes: the new MFI building in Gloucester has sprinklers; but others refuse to fit them, no matter how much people urge and plead with them.
The new Sainsbury Homebase store, only a few hundred yards from MFI in Gloucester, has consistently refused to fit sprinkler systems. I received a letter from Sainsbury only today saying that it believed that its evacuation procedures and smoke alarms were sufficient. They may be sufficient for evacuating the mobile public, but they are certainly not sufficient to protect the lives of firefighters and save the public purse the considerable cost of rescue operations. Those are compelling arguments.
I hope that the Government will take decisive action and leave the superstores no hole to wriggle through in fire safety. The time has come for superstores to put people before profits: fire systems should be compulsory and installed as a matter of course.

The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Kingham) on an excellent maiden speech. She has done all that hon. Members would expect from a maiden speaker: she paid a generous tribute to her predecessor, described the city that she represents in imaginative and attractive terms and, above all, highlighted a serious issue that deserves earnest consideration in the House and has a direct relevance to her constituency because of the fire to which she alluded, which was a traumatic episode in the life of the people of Gloucester.
The Government share my hon. Friend's concern about fires such as the one in Gloucester and the others to which she referred. It is obviously of particular concern when such incidents cause death or injury to firefighters. I shall say more about the Gloucester fire later, but, at this stage, I should like to express my sympathy, on behalf of the Government, to the relatives of all those firefighters who died in the fires to which my hon. Friend referred. We consider that to be a very serious issue, and it is extremely important that the Government should learn lessons from fires when they occur.
To that end, my Department has a contract with the fire research station, which is part of the Building Research Establishment, to investigate fires in buildings that could have implications for the building regulations. All the three fires to which my hon. Friend referred have been investigated and the issues discussed; for example, the use of sandwich panels is being considered.
The contract with the fire research station enables my Department to consider amendments to the building regulations that could have a bearing on life safety. I must stress at this point that building regulations are made primarily to ensure the health and safety of people in and around buildings, and are therefore not the right tool to deal with wider issues of environmental pollution and property protection. The health and safety of individuals is paramount, and I am sure that my hon. Friend would recognise that that is the right priority.
Guidance that would satisfy the fire aspects of the building regulations is given in approved document B on fire safety. The aim of the guidance is to ensure that buildings are safe while giving designers as much flexibility as possible. In the case of multi-storey retail buildings, the guidance suggests that floor area should be limited to 2,000 sq m in an unsprinklered building or 4,000 sq m in a building fitted with a sprinkler system.
It should therefore be clear that, in new multi-storey retail buildings, the floor area is not normally expected to exceed 4,000 sq m. Previous guidance to earlier building regulations suggested that the size limitation should be related to the volume of the space or compartment, but the current guidance takes account of research that suggested that fire loading was related more to floor area than to cubic measurements. In addition, adequate provision must be made for means of escape in the event of fire, regardless of whether the building is sprinklered.
The current guidance in the approved document suggests that single-storey retail buildings can be of unlimited extent without any sprinklers. A number of fires, such as the one in Gloucester, have occurred in single-storey retail units, and that aspect of the guidance has therefore been reviewed with the assistance of the fire research station, the fire advisory panel and the Building Regulations Advisory Committee.
The results of that work suggested that a case could be made for the installation of a sprinkler system in new single-storey retail buildings where the compartment exceeds 4,000 sq m. That is therefore one of the issues being considered as approved document B is redrafted for consultation. I have recently been in touch with the Home Office on the matter and I am keen that we make progress.
The delay in implementing changes has been caused partly by the lack of urgency accorded to the matter by the previous Administration and partly by the need to get together a comprehensive new package of guidance on fire safety. I am confident that we shall be able to start consultation in the very near future.
Proposed changes will reflect the need to consider the safety of both the occupants of the building and firefighters. Any change to the guidance is still expected to provide the designer with flexibility, giving the option either to compartmentalise the building to provide a physical barrier for fire containment, or to provide a sprinkler installation to control the spread of fire.
I understand that the Gloucester fire was caused by an arson attack during the night of 23 May and the early hours of 24 May last year. Fire was detected in pallets stored


immediately outside and adjacent to a large single-storey retail store. The store where the fire started has a floor area of almost 2,000 sq m and is part of a larger development that contains other retail units separated from each other by compartment walls. Fire brigade access to the site is described as good, with access on three sides of the store.
Under the building regulations, the external walls need not be provided with any fire resistance, because they are not classed as elements of structure; they do not support upper floors, as would likely have been the case had the building been multi-storey. The building was also sited far enough away from other buildings and the site boundary for the external walls not to have required fire resistance. Once the pallets had been ignited, the fire had ample opportunity to enter the building through the external walls.
Fire broke into the storage compartment of the building and spread among flat-pack furniture laid out on steel storage racking. There was no form of smoke venting or mechanism for heat release, and firefighters could enter the building only in the very early stages of the fire. The fire spread throughout the retail unit and affected a second smaller unit containing stored carpet rolls, because the compartment wall separating the units failed.
During the fire's development, and mainly owing to the new source of fuel in the carpet area, a thick blanket of black acrid smoke hung over the area. The fumes were thought to be a cocktail of noxious gases. The chief fire officer, environmental health officer and police considered at one stage evacuating the housing development immediately adjoining the site, but it was decided that occupants could remain if they closed all their windows.
The fire officer drew particular attention to the roof structure, which to some extent prevented firefighters from fighting the fire and effectively cooling down the compartment wall separating the units. That was particularly important if an attempt was to be made to prevent the fire from spreading between units.
Because of the temperature of the fire and the nature of the stored materials in the two units, there was clearly a possibility of environmental pollution, although, as I have explained, that is not dealt with under the building regulations. As regrettable as the incident was, I am relieved, as my hon. Friend was, that there was no loss of life or injuries. I have also noted that the units were unsprinklered.
Automatic sprinkler systems have amply demonstrated their effectiveness in preventing large fires and my Department, in conjunction with other Departments, is considering what steps can be taken to encourage more widespread use of sprinklers on a voluntary basis.
Modern sprinkler systems are engineered to the extent that the components are designed to cater for the needs of the insurance industry and can be costly to install. Many systems that protect buildings are hydraulically capable of supplying up to 18 sprinkler heads at any one time, whereas records show that, in most fires, no more than four sprinkler heads actually operate. My hon. Friend referred to an average of approximately five in any individual case. However, it is probable that even a small number of operating heads will be sufficient immediately to reduce the rate of spread of the fire and raise the alarm about the fire.
I understand the concerns of insurance companies and the issues relating to property protection although, as I said earlier, building regulations which deal with fire relate only to those issues that affect life safety. However,

the probability of a fire occurring at a time when the mains water supply has failed or when the mains electricity supply is not available is considered to be very small. We are, therefore, looking at ways in which the use of simpler, less costly sprinkler systems for life safety can be encouraged. A research project with the fire research station on sprinklers for life safety and means of escape is being undertaken for my Department to assist with that objective.
Research into a study of the interactions of sprinkler sprays with venting, and their combined effect on the fire gases in enclosures is also being undertaken by the fire research station on behalf of my Department. Another research project is intended to look at the relationship between sprinklers for life safety and means of escape. That will look at whether cheaper and simpler sprinkler systems are adequate for life safety rather than the more costly sprinklers installed for property protection. A study group will be set up to derive trade-off factors which compare the benefits of sprinklers with other fire protection measures such as travel distances and structural fire precautions.
It is also intended to develop mathematical models to assist with the decision making on the use of compensatory features relating to fire precautions in buildings. That will benefit both the occupants of the buildings from a safety point of view and designers with regard to flexibility. It should also help to make buildings cost-effective. Following from that research, there will also be an experimental study to provide better understanding of the interactions of the sprinkler sprays with venting and their effect on fire gases.
Human behaviour in fire is also an important issue, and a study on the impact of sprinkler systems on tenability limits will therefore look at the factors affecting smoke production and the effects of fire gases on human behaviour.
In the meantime, one further issue to which the new Government have given attention is the scope for local authorities to require enhanced fire precaution standards in advance of what would be necessary to comply with building regulations requirements. I was concerned to discover that when appeals were lodged against the exercise of such local discretion, it was routine practice under the previous Government to allow the appeal, therefore nullifying the effect of local discretion. I have stopped that practice and am now looking at all appeals on a case-by-case basis. That will, I believe, be welcome to local authorities which have, as my hon. Friend has highlighted, been frustrated by the inability to secure, in the past, compliance with their enhanced fire precaution requirements other than on the basis of voluntary agreement.
My hon. Friend will, I hope, appreciate from all of this that we fully recognise the importance of fire safety in buildings. Our research programme is designed to assist in the preparation of revised building regulations. I hope that we shall be able to go out to consultation in the next month or so on a revised version of approved document B. I can assure my hon. Friend that the revised text will deal with the issue of sprinklers in large single-storey retail buildings. Nevertheless, I and my officials will look again at the material that she has presented today. We are determined that effective measures must be in place to provide proper protection in the event of fire for all who could be affected, whether they are the individuals who use the store or firefighters trying to contain a fire.

Beef Industry

Mr. Christopher Gill: I should like to preface my remarks by declaring a lifelong interest in the meat and livestock industry. I have no intention of saying anything in this debate that would justify scoring political points. For far too long, the food industry in general and the meat and livestock industry in particular has been used for political point-scoring. The House would do well to remember the devastating effect that that has had on the lives and livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of men and women employed in those industries.
As an earnest of my good intent, I shall start by giving credit where credit is due. I applaud the Government's efforts to achieve a ban on specified risk material in all European Union abattoirs. That is necessary if the European beef industry is to be an integral part of the single market established on 1 January 1996. Common sense decrees that, given that SRM is perceived to harbour the bovine spongiform encephalopathy agent, it is right to ban SRM in all European abattoirs. That is a small but none the less welcome development. As that faint glimmer of light appears at the end of a long and dark tunnel, we should ask ourselves what lessons there are to be learnt for the future.
Never again must the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Department of Health precipitate the sort of food scares seen in 1988 about salmonella in eggs and, more recently, in 1996 about BSE. Nor must Ministers of the Crown allow themselves to be stampeded into making pronouncements and taking actions that are not only unsupported by the facts but at odds with practical experience and common sense.
The House will recognise both the events to which I have referred as having occurred under a Conservative Government, but my message to Ministers is that they could just as easily occur under a Labour Administration, given that the sources of the advice that they receive are unchanged and that the civil servants who give the advice are, by and large, the same people who advised the previous Government.
Ministers should be asking not what additional legislation is necessary but what is the source of their advice, what is the quality of the advice that they receive, and what was the end result of following that advice. They should ask those questions against the background of the holocaust in the animal kingdom that has occurred as a result of following advice. Some 3.7 million head of poultry were compulsorily destroyed between March 1989 and June 1996. More than 1.5 million cattle have been needlessly destroyed in the past 15 months. I say needlessly, because there was no realistic prospect that salmonella could be eradicated and there is no proof or evidence that BSE causes Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. We must learn from those experiences. We must learn to understand the dynamics of the rather new phenomenon, the scare. We must recognise the risk of falling into the trap of feeling that something must be done when, more often than not, that action simply serves to confirm people's worst fears. In short, the hazard is that control measures may simply exacerbate the problems and have the opposite effect to what was intended.
Before I turn my attention to the future, I wish to highlight some of the industry's current concerns. The first is the phasing out of the rendering subsidy, which

will make beef dearer—the opposite of what is needed in present circumstances. British beef will become even less competitive with foreign imports at a time when the strong pound is creating problems enough. In that regard, the whole farming industry looks to the Government to reconsider their decision on agrimonetary aids. The phasing out of aid to renderers will also drive producers and processors out of business, to the long-term detriment of the nation's balance of payments and the livestock industry's future prosperity. It will precipitate the demise of the knackermen—those unloved and, to the European Union, unwanted people who, along with hunt kennels, provide the livestock farmer with an outlet for fallen and casualty stock, which would otherwise be buried on farm, with all the hazards that that implies.
Secondly, farmers are concerned about the reduction in payments under the over-30-months scheme, not least the arbitrary decision to impose a 560 kg ceiling. It appears that that decision has been made for political reasons, given that there has been no consultation with the industry and that there is no statistical evidence to support that cut-off point.

Mr. Edward Garnier: On the subject of the OTMS, I should like to draw my hon. Friend's attention to a letter that a constituent of mine, Mr. John Wadland, received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), in reply to his letter to MAFF in which he set out his concerns as a beef farmer about the reduction in the compensation payment. In that reply, dated 22 July, the junior Minister said:
With the greatest of respect I felt yours was a very silly letter. If you really feel that Dr. Cunningham"—
the Minister—
who has represented beef and dairy farmers for decades in his rural constituency of Cumbria"—
his constituency is not Cumbria—
does not understand the difference in a suckler herd and a dairy herd then you really need your head examining.
What hope do my farmers and my hon. Friend's farmers have when arrogant Ministers write such offensive, rude letters to farmers in trouble?

Mr. Gill: That is not the sort of letter that I would have written. I recall speaking in a debate in the previous Parliament on the subject of quality beef, when I was ruled out of order by the Chair for referring to suckler cows. We should take that lack of understanding of our industry seriously, because we have a lot of leeway to make up so that the public and, indeed, colleagues in the House of Commons understand what our industry entails.
On the subject of the OTMS, I am sure that my constituents would wish me to place on record the anger and frustration felt among Shropshire farmers. Incidentally, their cattle account for 5 per cent. of the nation's dairy herds and 4 per cent. of the nation's suckler herds. They are angry because there are no longer any abattoirs in the county contracted to handle OTMS stock.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that beef cattle in constituencies such as mine, which are effectively store cattle and are raised in open forest in the most ecological


conditions, are particularly penalised by the changes to the OTMS, when they are the least responsible for the BSE crisis?

Mr. Gill: I understand my hon. Friend's question. There is a good case for Ministers to look again at the OTMS, to see whether it could be converted into an over-36-months scheme. That would give a little more headroom for the type of cattle production that my hon. Friend described. Given that the limit of 30 months was set arbitrarily, I believe that there is no obstruction to raising it to 36 months. I hope very much that the Minister will consider that.
As I said, in Shropshire there are no longer any abattoirs contracted to deal with OTMS cattle. Will the Minister reconsider his decision not to award a contract to F. M. Caine and Sons Ltd. of Ludlow, which may prove to be the last straw for that knacker business? That would result in serious repercussions on an area that is highly dependent on livestock.
Thirdly, I wish to relay the concerns felt by many of my farming constituents that the calf processing aid scheme is now working against the economics of the beef industry by putting a false bottom in the market, which militates against cost cutting and low inputs as a means of producing a competitive product.
As for the future, let me say at the outset that there is a future for an industry that produces one of the finest and most natural food products in the world. That product contains high-quality protein, important vitamins and vital minerals, which, as any nutritionist worth his salt would tell us, are essential ingredients in a healthy, balanced diet.
As the House knows, the first priority is to get the beef export ban lifted. In that connection, I seek the Minister's confirmation that Her Majesty's Government will, forthwith, as a matter of urgency, put a firm proposal to Brussels that beef from cattle born after 1 August 1996 should be exempt from current restrictions.
The second priority must surely be to restructure drastically the beef regime, so that the industry takes the all-important decisions about what should be produced, in what quantities and to what standards of quality. Those decisions should seen to be quite separate from the ones that Governments may or may not wish to take in relation to the future well-being of the countryside.
The ruination of the beef industry, BSE and other scares apart, has been the dead hand of the common agricultural policy, which has skewed production to the continental pattern of beef production. In other words, no subsidies are paid in this country on beef from heifers, which was always an important source of quality beef on the British market. Even now, the Agenda 2000 proposals seek to take that a stage further, by creating even bigger incentives to produce bull beef as opposed to the traditional steer beef. In the past, so much of our quality beef has come from steer cattle.
The common agricultural policy has dictated quality standards by dint of the specifications for intervention, which in its turn has become, on occasion, a bigger and better customer than consumers. It has created the situation in which billions of taxpayers' money has been spent incentivising the production of a product that the

market either does not want or cannot cope with, at a price that consumers are reluctant to pay, as evidenced by the relatively static level of demand.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. As for the future, does he agree that it would be helpful towards meeting the pre-Florence conditions if, rather than moving to a part paper-based traceability system, which could only be bureaucratic and place a heavy burden on farmers, we moved to a computer-based system, and that we did so quickly?

Mr. Gill: My right hon. Friend has raised a matter which is of concern to many of my farmers. The sooner we decide on the system that we intend to adopt to tag and identify animals, and move to it, the better. I am mindful of the fact, however, that there are extreme practical difficulties in ear-tagging animals. Although it is easy to do that in practice, in the weeks during which the cattle are grazing, tags are inevitably lost. There is then a huge problem in trying to trace which tag has been lost and its number, and replacing it. As an industry, we must consider other forms of identifying cattle, and certainly my right hon. Friend's suggestion is entirely sensible. I believe it to be the most practical, and I am sure that the Minister will note his suggestion.
The CAP beef regime has had most unfortunate consequences for British beef. When I spoke on "Farming Today", I was at pains to try—when the interviewer would allow me to get a word in edgeways—to explain that in the case of my family business, which runs an abattoir, we gave up the slaughter of cattle about 10 years ago. We did so not because of BSE, but simply because that commodity had become so political that I concluded that I was not clever enough to best-guess the decisions of the Intervention Board and all those people in Brussels who interfere so dramatically in the business.
We need to get away from all that and put the whole industry back in a position in which it can call the shots and decide on the quality and standards that will give the consumer a first-class product. I have no doubt that this country can produce better-quality beef than can any other country in Europe or, indeed, the world.
The system that I have just described provides a sharp contrast with how we did things 25 years ago, before we joined the Common Market. The old British deficiency payment scheme meant that farmers' incomes were maintained, consumers had the benefit of cheaper meat and ate more of it, taxpayers subsidised food production, to the benefit of non-taxpayers and people on low incomes, and food was used for its intended purpose: feeding hungry mouths, not creating wine lakes or beef and butter mountains, which ultimately have to be disposed of at further prodigious cost to the taxpayer.
The Minister may not agree with my analysis, but no one can deny that, for as long as most of us have been in the House, there have been calls for the reform of the common agricultural policy. I have one question for all who say that reform is the answer: how do they intend to bring about such reform of the CAP? It would require either unanimity or perhaps even a qualified majority vote, whereas it is as plain as a pikestaff that there are more winners than losers under the policy. I do not expect that many Germans would share my perspective; but my


perspective is that of a practical man representing the interests of an intensely practical beef industry, which was once the finest in the world.
What reform of the CAP there has been has always resulted in bigger problems, more expense and more bureaucracy. I would ask the Minister not to underestimate the devastating effect of all the bureaucracy on many farmers, especially small family farmers who find all this form filling very difficult. The Minister will be aware of the many grievances that have resulted from forms being rejected because they were filled in wrongly. I have often investigated such cases and I am persuaded that the forms were not deliberately filled in incorrectly. They were wrong either because of poor guidance from MAFF officials or because of their sheer difficulty.
I leave the House with one final thought. In 1997, it is likely that there will be more deaths among farmers who commit suicide or die from stress-related illnesses brought about by bureaucracy and the strains of seeing their cattle needlessly destroyed than among people contracting CJD. Surely this is a case, if ever there was one, of the cure being infinitely worse than the disease.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I paused before rising, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) was able to start his speech early, and I should have been more than happy to give time to any other hon. Member who wanted to speak. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate, and I certainly understand the feeling with which he spoke. I heard his truncated interview on "Farming Today" this morning, and I acknowledge the vigour and sincerity with which he makes all his points.
Some weeks ago, the hon. Gentleman and I conducted an exchange across the Floor of the House to the effect that we need to treat this matter in an adult way. It is not a matter for party politics—but we still have to deal with the legacy that we have been left, and that limits our choices.
The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we must learn the lessons of this affair. Never again must Agriculture or Health Ministers precipitate food scares by the way in which they communicate risk. That is being given detailed attention by my colleagues in MAFF and the Department of Health. We are trying to learn the lessons of the past, and we, too, are practical people living in the real world. A change of Government does not mean that there will never be another food problem. We shall try to manage problems as they arise without causing the collapse of any industry or needlessly putting thousands out of work. Common sense is of the essence.
Certainly, the public need reassurance, which is why, later this year, we shall publish a White Paper on the setting up of an independent food standards agency, at arm's length from the Government but accountable to this House. That should lead to greater confidence on the part of the public and the industry. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that many hours of civil service and ministerial time are being devoted to the preparation of that document.

Mr. Gill: The food industry is greatly concerned that the new agency may include nutrition in its remit. That,

the industry believes most strongly, is a matter for commercial judgment and decision. The risk is that standards and nutrition may get confused in the process.

Mr. Rooker: During the consultation period, Professor James has received well over 600 submissions. We have not ended consultation; the submissions are still coming in every week. They are all being considered and fed into the machine. Several people have written to Ministers on the subject of nutrition, but no decision has been taken on it yet: it is still under consideration. We fully expect the White Paper to include several green chapters, on which we are consulting further at the moment. We have no wish to be inflexible. Some issues are clearly in; others are clearly out. But there is a group in the middle on which we are more than happy to allow hon. Members and the industry to comment further, before we bring a Bill before the House.
A central plank of our policy is the restoration of confidence in food. The beef industry has taken a battering, but we are doing what we can actively to encourage consumers, based on the honest belief that beef produced in this country is safer than any other beef in the world.
We have taken steps to beef up the Meat Hygiene Service—the Ministry's policemen—to ensure that what goes on in slaughterhouses and meat-cutting plants fully complies with hygiene regulations. We recently closed down two plants on hygiene grounds, while the licences of certain other plants have been withdrawn on structural grounds. The service's officers do a difficult job. It is not easy to go into an abattoir and tell the owner or manager to slow down the line or else he will have to close down. We are giving officers all the powers that they need, and we fully intend to use them.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the over-30-months scheme. What he says is wholly reasonable, but 30 months is not an arbitrary figure; nor was it imposed by Europe. It was the recommendation of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee. The Government, like the previous Government, are duty bound to accept advice from independent scientists. I emphasise that they are not Ministry scientists, but independent scientists. As an aside, I might add that I relied on advice from independent scientists when making the recent decision on vitamin B6. Those people are not paid by the Ministry; the previous Government were right to rely on SEAC and we shall do the same.
The beef assurance scheme provides an opportunity for animals between 30 months and 42 months to be sold on the market, rather than being sent to over-30-months destruction. I realise that the scheme has never really taken off and, from my few short weeks of experience since coming to the Ministry, I believe that it has not been pushed.

Mr. James Paice: Before the Minister leaves the subject of the over-30-months scheme, I should like to raise a few points in the same spirit as that adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) and the Minister. My hon. Friend raised the issues of the reduction in price and the cap of 560 kg. Will the Minister confirm that the 560-kg limit is the limit that the European Community funds, but that, until next week and under the previous Government's


decision, the British Treasury funds the excess? Will the Minister tell the House now—or, if he cannot, will he undertake to write to me or to my hon. Friend—what relative savings he expects will arise from next week's changes, that is, the savings from the reduction in price and from the weight capping?

Mr. Rooker: I shall be more than happy to do that, but my recollection is that the information that the hon. Gentleman requests has already been given in answers to written parliamentary questions. I authorised one answer that provided information that had not previously been given on the expected savings from the changes that are envisaged.
Before I come to the subject of renderers, it is fair to say that the Intervention Board, which is an independent Government agency, carried out competitive tendering to get value for money in dealing with the over-30-months scheme. Although I understand why the hon. Member for Ludlow is aggrieved that there are no OTMS abattoirs left in Shropshire, there are a good number on the outskirts. I know that, because I listed them all in a parliamentary answer to the hon. Gentleman. The second large abattoir that I visited was in Shropshire, although it was not involved in the over-30-months scheme. I understand the hon. Gentleman's feelings, but the Intervention Board was duty bound to try to get value for money. Over the past three years, the sums paid out have declined considerably from the payments first made at the height of the BSE crisis.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the renderers subsidy, but I have to make it clear that we found that no money had been left behind to pay for it. The scheme was a one-off—£59 million for one year—and there is nothing in the kitty to pay for another year. If the scheme were to carry on, the money would have to come from some other element of the Ministry's support scheme for farmers. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced, we decided that, not having the money to extend the scheme past one year, we would withdraw the subsidy. All we are doing is coming to the end of the first year of a scheme for which money was provided for one year and not two, and that is that. I accept the consequences and realise that we cannot escape from the difficulties that the decision might cause.
The right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) asked about the date-based scheme. We are pressing that issue and we have put proposals for a date-based scheme to the European Commission. We are currently having informal discussions, and we shall report the results of those discussions to the House, or communicate them to hon. Members during the recess, as quickly as possible. The issue is not one which we can deploy in public, but we are pressing on every possible means of breaching the ban. The idea that we might end the ban all in one go is probably not realistic, so we are operating on several different fronts, and a date-based scheme is certainly one of those fronts.

Mr. Paice: Will the Minister confirm what he has just said? He said that the Government have made proposals to the Commission. I am aware of informal discussions going on, but my understanding is that the Government have not yet made formal proposals for a date-based scheme.

Mr. Rooker: I can confirm that, because I read it in my brief, but I shall put it on the record now. We are developing a new proposal for a date-based scheme and have put our ideas to the Commission. Details will be announced when the exploratory talks with the Commission have progressed and the Government are ready to put forward a formal proposal. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to clarify that important issue.
The hon. Member for Ludlow, thinking of the future, talked about traceability and the tagging of cattle. I have discussed that with farmers, seen the taggers and heard the arguments about plastic and metal tags. It would appear that we shall probably have one plastic tag and one metal tag. I shall check when I get back to the Ministry, but it may well be that the relevant legislation is to be laid before the House today. We are actively pursuing that matter. We have got agreement on what we wanted: we were asked for two plastic tags, but all the indications were that, in this country, plastic tags do not work, for the reasons given by the hon. Gentleman. An electronic scheme is certainly an option down the track and must be borne in mind, but we cannot go for a Rolls-Royce job to start with. If we do that, we shall be in real trouble from day one.
On a positive note, it is worth remembering that one of the five preconditions of the Florence framework for lifting the ban was a centralised animal identification and movement recording system with official registration—what I shall now call the British cattle movement service. I am pleased to announce to the House that, earlier today, I decided that we were in a position to announce where the headquarters of that operation would be, because we are moving fast to get it set up and running by the end of March next year. Some time ago, my right hon. Friend the Minister asked me to decide on the location, and the decision was urgent if we were to meet our deadline.
I am pleased to announce that the headquarters of the British cattle movement service, which will be paid for by the industry, will be located in Workington, west Cumbria. It is part of my ministerial duty to ensure that the project is successful and gives value for money to the industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister has played no part in the choice of location, which is in a constituency adjoining his own, although Workington was once represented by Fred Peart, a former Labour Minister of Agriculture. The decision will bring value for money, coupled with clear advantages in terms of our regional, social and employment policies. More than 100 new jobs will be created in the operation of the scheme.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: On behalf of my constituents in Workington, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for this enlightened decision, for which many of us have pressed for several years. We will make the scheme work. I also express my gratitude to the West Cumberland development agency and especially to John Grainger and Barbara Stephens for the excellent way in which they conducted themselves in bringing forward the bid.

Mr. Rooker: I thank my hon. Friend. As he knows, it was crucial that a decision was made on the location of the headquarters if we were to stand a chance of getting it up and running.
The hon. Member for Ludlow raised several other issues in respect of the price of beef. His remarks about the market were absolutely right—producing beef for intervention is not a runner for the future and a market-led arrangement will have to be arrived at. The sooner that fact dawns on everybody, the better. Although I do not say that in the past schemes have been fudged at the edge, there is no doubt that, as different schemes have been introduced, farmers have adjusted their production in order to obtain the benefits. When the schemes are changed because of a crisis or because the European Commission decides to change things, the farmers get their fingers burnt. That is most unfortunate and I regret it.
It is important to produce a quality product at a quality price, so that the corner butcher's shop—there should be more of those—and the supermarket can sell with confidence to their customers, because they know which farm the beef came from and what the animal was fed on. Moreover, if ever a problem arises in future, better traceability systems will enable us to nip it in the bud straight away. There will be no need to search for cattle that may or may not be a problem for the food chain in future.
I shall write to the hon. Member for Ludlow in the early part of the recess about any points that I have not covered.

Ambulance Services (Powys)

Mr. Richard Livsey: I am confronted with every middle-aged Member's nightmare: my reading glasses went missing in the past hour and I am unable to read my speech. However, the Library has come to my rescue, and South and East Wales ambulance NHS trust will be put under the magnifying glass. It is especially appropriate as we are talking about the national health service and one might mention eye tests in passing. My eyesight is quite good and only requires a magnification of 1 or 1½, so I shall have a go and see how I get on.
I want to talk about the performance of the South and East Wales ambulance NHS trust in relation to Powys. It is not a tale that it should be proud of.
Wales is often unfairly referred to when drawing parallels with the size of a problem—rather larger than this magnifying glass, of course. Many disasters on the map of the world are said to take place in an area the size of Wales. In fact, Wales is much larger than people who live outside it—or people who live in certain corners of it—may realise. I do not know whether the House realises it, but the county of Powys is about 135 miles long. If it were placed lengthwise on the south of England it would stretch from the Severn bridge to Chiswick flyover. Given the number of constituencies that it would encompass, it is a massive area of territory.
The story of Powys in the past five years—under a different Administration—has not been a happy one. We have lost control of several services. Our fire service, which we used to control from Powys, is now operational from Carmarthen, as is our health authority. Effectively, 42 employees used to run Powys health authority from Bronllys in my constituency; almost all of that operation has closed down and now operates from Carmarthen. We were told last week that the Development Board for Rural Wales may be subsumed into the Welsh Development Agency; that may be the result of decision making in Cardiff.
Perhaps the most bizarre union took place at the time when the Conservative Government were manufacturing trusts at the rate of almost one a minute. There were effectively competitions to produce trusts. Some of the managers in Powys got empire building and when they moved to Cardiff they set their sights retrospectively on Powys and decided that they would build the South and East Wales ambulance NHS trust, a jumbo-sized ambulance trust, covering the huge area from Penarth in the south to within 10 miles of Wrexham in the north.
That decision set in train many events. We are distressed about what has happened. I shall do my best to describe some of the problems that we have witnessed in the past three or four years.
The ambulance trust was as dire as we had expected. It started in headquarters in Cardiff and moved to brand new headquarters in Pontypool—a state-of-the-art complex of the type that empire builders are encouraged to indulge in.
Most country people in Powys are blessed with a great deal of common sense, and forecast more or less immediately what would happen as a result of the creation of that jumbo-sized trust. The inevitable has occurred—an overspend, estimated to be £1.5 million to £2 million, resulting from the amalgamations.
Savings were then needed, and the middle management operating in Powys were sacked to save money. The middle management who operated Powys ambulance services so successfully in the 1980s and early 1990s did not run at a loss in any financial year. They were competent managers and ran the service with probity.
The trust became short of facilities, especially ambulances. A commitment had been made by contract with Dyfed Powys health authority that a certain number of ambulances would work in Powys. However, it was not beyond the imagination of SEWAT to transfer ambulances from the Crickhowell ambulance station in Powys to Cardiff to ferry patients from Cardiff royal infirmary to the university hospital of Wales, because of a shortage of ambulances. That had a knock-on, kickback effect into Powys, where extra cover had to be provided from Llandrindod to Brecon and Bronllys, which were providing cover for Crickhowell. I am told by operatives in Crickhowell that they spent most of their time working in Gwent, but Dyfed Powys health authority appears to being paying for all that.
This resulted eventually in Dyfed Powys health authority threatening SEWAT that it would terminate its contract forthwith because it was not providing the necessary service. The lively and intelligent people of Powys realised what was going on all along; 15,000 of them signed a petition in February, saying that they wanted their ambulance service back. The petition was stretchered up the steps of the Welsh Office in Cardiff. All 15,000 signatories were residents of Powys, who demanded a repatriation of their ambulance service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) and I took a further 16,000-name petition in early June—collected in conjunction with the Shropshire Star—concerning the closure of a communications centre in Newtown, to the Secretary of State at Gwydyr house in Whitehall. Altogether, therefore, 31,000 people in Powys have expressed on petitions their dissatisfaction with the service.
In the meantime, there has been an horrendous litany of cases of poor communications between Pontypool, where the centre is, and Powys. Mistakes have been made; place names have been confused. Perhaps the worst example that I can give is that an ambulance that was supposed to arrive in Bala road in Llanfyllin arrived in Bala in Gwynedd instead. That type of thing appears to have been happening because the people in Pontypool do not know the geography of Powys. Eventually, they came to their senses and imported three residents of Powys to operate the communications centre in Pontypool.
Perhaps the worst feature, however, is that for some reason it was decided to close the communications centre of SEWAT in Newtown. I regard that as an act of vandalism, because the Newtown centre was working extremely well and knew all parts of Powys. There was no delay in getting ambulances to the right place within the specified 21-minute turnaround time. The problem is that it was decided to close it down. However, not only was it closed down but equipment worth some £80,000 was removed from the centre and it will take some doing to get the communications centre put back in Newtown. We find that extraordinary, and it culminated in a disjointed communications system.
In late February, I went to the hospital in Llandrindod and was confronted with a doctor, a nurse and an upset lady in a bed who had been waiting for two days to go to Hereford for an operation because no ambulance was available to take her from Llandrindod to Hereford. The bed had been booked in Hereford hospital and the surgeon was waiting to perform the operation, but there was no ambulance. After three hours on the third day, no ambulance had yet shown up. Understandably, she was in some pain and needed the operation urgently.
What does the Minister intend to do about the re-configuration of ambulance services in Wales? I have a dossier of comments from every GP practice in my constituency about the ambulance service in Powys. I shall give just one example of the sort of thing that has been happening. In a letter to the chief executive of SEWAT, Mr. Morris from Brecon in my constituency said:
Between midnight and I am on the morning of Saturday 14th June Doctor Diane Davies made a 999 call to summon an ambulance to 26, Pendre Close, Brecon, Powys. My mother, Helena Mary Morris was very ill and needed to be taken to hospital.
After some twenty minutes the ambulance had failed to arrive so Doctor Davies rang Brecon War Memorial Hospital where the ambulance is based. It emerged that the crew were completely unaware that they were needed.
They were less than a mile away from the patient. The letter went on:
They then immediately came to the assistance of my mother.
Despite the efforts of Doctor Davies and the ambulance crew my mother passed away.
I am very angry at what is such conspicuous incompetence on your organisation's part and I require an immediate explanation from you.
An explanation has been given, but it certainly does not match my constituent's description of what happened.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does my hon. Friend agree that that case underlines the gravity of the problem? SEWAT's problems do not just lead to inconvenience; they may be endangering the lives of people in Powys and they will continue to do so until we have an absolute assurance that they will be resolved.

Mr. Livsey: I agree very much with what my hon. Friend said.
Dr. Harvey of Talgarth wrote to the Dyfed local management committee of the trust outlining the problems that had been experienced. He said:
Though we were informed that there was to be a change"—
in the operation of the ambulance service as a result of the removal of the control centre—
we actually were given one week's notice of the actual date of change.
We had severe difficulty getting information from headquarters as all calls were diverted to an answer machine and we rarely received a reply.
He was referring to the doctor's answering service run by SEWAT. The GP practice in Knighton has given up on SEWAT, as have many GP practices in Powys, and is using a service operating out of Wolverhampton. Dr. Harvey goes on to say:
We were given five days notice that our original radios were no longer of any use and had to be replaced at the cost of £900.


On the first night (27 March) we know for a fact that a patient with abdominal pain had to wait two hours before the doctor received the message (this was a test call by one of our lady doctors' husband to see what their response time was!)
I have pages and pages of that sort of information if the Minister would like to receive it from me. It covers not just February and March but April and May. We should like to know, first, that Powys ambulance services are detached from SEWAT where it has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that SEWAT is far too large and unwieldy, and incapable of managing the service in Powys effectively; and, secondly, that ambulance services in Powys will be returned to management in Powys, if necessary as a devolved division of Powys NHS trust. Thirdly, will the Minister confirm that American consultants are being used to advise the Welsh Office about ambulance services in Wales and that there are plans for either three ambulance services or one service for the whole of Wales? Will the Minister guarantee to the people of Powys that their ambulance service will be administered from within Powys?
The maxim of all this must be: local knowledge saves lives. Nothing less will do.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Win Griffiths): I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has raised this important issue as it gives me an opportunity to respond to any concerns the residents of Powys might have about these vital services.
The Government regard ambulance provision as an integral and important part of the health service, providing a front-line, life-saving service to the people of Wales. It is appropriate at the outset to pay tribute to the ambulance men and women, control staff and all the other staff and management who play such an important role in this relatively small but key part of the national health service. I am only too aware of the increasing pressures that the ambulance service must deal with daily through increased numbers of emergency and urgent calls. In the face of the increasing work-load, the dedication of all those staff has been demonstrated time and again, and we all owe them a debt of gratitude.
The South and East Wales ambulance NHS trust—or SEWAT, as it is better know—is by far the largest provider of ambulance services in Wales, serving a population of more than 1 million people. Those services are provided throughout the unitary authority areas of Powys, Blaenau Gwent, Monmouthshire, Torfaen, Caerphilly, Newport, Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. Within that area, Powys accounts for some 10 per cent. of the trust's catchment population, with 122,000 residents living within a vast area of over 2,000 sq miles. If I may put that into context, the population of Cardiff currently stands at just over 300,000 within an area of just 54 sq miles. Clearly, the county of Powys needs special attention to cover such vast distances and address other problems associated with its rurality. Having been brought up in Powys, I am aware of all those matters. Indeed, I still have family in the town of Brecon, to which the hon. Gentleman referred when bringing a sad case to our attention.
SEWAT was formed on 1 April 1993 by the amalgamation of three county ambulance services. Since it was formed, I recognise that the trust has made efforts to improve performance standards across all the areas it serves. Despite increasing numbers of emergency calls, the trust has improved its performance against the existing standards for ambulance response times in Powys. Those standards dictate that for 95 per cent. of emergency calls an ambulance must arrive at the scene of an incident within 21 minutes. In the year to 31 March 1992, a total of 4,146 emergency calls were dealt with by the former provider of ambulance services for the area of the Powys health authority, with an 83 per cent. response within 21 minutes. By comparison, in the year to 31 March 1997, calls had increased by almost 10 per cent. to 4,424 and, despite this significant increase, the trust managed to improve its response times for the 21-minute standard to just over 90 per cent. Although that falls short of national standards in Wales and the trust is currently facing difficulties in reaching the required performance targets, I am sure that hon. Members will agree that in Powys the South and East Wales ambulance trust has made real progress since it was first established.
As hon. Members know, however, SEWAT has had more than its fair share of problems—poor management, loose and unacceptable financial control, substandard services in some areas and practices that have, on occasion, fallen well below the standards that we would all expect from a public body. We have made it clear to the SEWAT board that we expect things to change and, I am pleased to say, there is some evidence that that is happening.
Financially, the trust seems to be returning to a firmer footing and in a number of other areas concerned with the real business of the trust—I mean the services that it provides—the board is taking action to put right issues that have dogged its rather unfortunate history—none of which, I am pleased to say, this Government have been associated with.
I know that the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and other hon. Members have been concerned about SEWAT's new command and control centre, which was developed as part of the trust's programme to upgrade and improve the facilities and services that it provides. In 1994, each of the three areas served by the trust had in place its own control centre. Those were based at Cardiff, Newtown and Caerleon and although they were still operable, as a result of lack of investment the trust had inherited aging and unreliable technology that was in urgent need of replacement. In the case of the then Gwent and South Glamorgan control centres the equipment was more than 10 years old, and in the case of Powys the equipment was due for replacement the following year.
The trust examined all possible options for replacing the equipment, including simply purchasing new equipment for each site. It concluded that the most appropriate route to follow was centralisation on a single site at Mamhilad. One of the major benefits to arise from centralisation was the elimination of the fragmentation of services within the trust. At the time, each ambulance division was acting in isolation from the others, with the result that cross-boundary co-operation was poor.
Such a situation was intolerable in a single trust. The buildings housing the previous control centres were in a poor state of repair and would have required major structural work to bring them up to their former standard. The trust considered that the resources would be better utilised to provide additional medical equipment and to train more ambulance staff.
Although there are benefits associated with the centralisation of control centre functions, there have been a number of significant teething problems, some of which have been raised in correspondence that I have received from the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who I see is in his place.
The decision of some staff at the last minute not to relocate from the Powys control centre to the new centre at Pontypool initially led to staff shortages and, coupled with technical difficulties, led to an increased number of problems for the trust. Those have now been addressed, following the recruitment of additional staff and the correction of difficulties with the technical equipment.
A number of operational measures have been introduced to help to resolve the trust's problems in relation to command and control. One of the most significant problems in dealing with the Powys area in the early stages of the implementation of the new control centre was the lack of geographical knowledge of the area, again partly due to the reluctance of staff to relocate. That led to a small number of calls being directed to the wrong location and caused some confusion and distress, not only for patients and their relatives, but for the ambulance crews who worked in those areas.
The trust has addressed the problem by ensuring that emergency calls from each of the three health authority areas served by the trust are handled separately. In addition, calls from GPs are handled by separate staff, as are calls relating to patient transport services.
Another major step that the trust has recently taken to eliminate the confusion caused by the lack of geographical knowledge of the control room staff is the purchase of a geographical information system. This allows staff to see on a single map the exact location of the caller and all the ambulances in that area, and to decide which ambulance should be assigned to the call and the length of time that it will take to arrive at the incident.
We should not forget the vital role played by the ambulance crews themselves. Their invaluable local knowledge allows them to reach the patient by taking the most appropriate route, and the same knowledge allows the patient to be transported to hospital, if necessary, by the quickest and safest route.
The importance that the trust places on ensuring that those and other problems are dealt with swiftly in Powys is clearly demonstrated by its willingness to work with other local health providers. It has established a development group which is chaired by the trust's own director of operations and includes representatives of the Dyfed Powys health authority, the local medical committee and the Powys Healthcare Trust.
The group seeks to address concerns over performance measures, standards and protocols for the ambulance service in the Powys area. It is also a useful tool for the

trust to rebuild relationships with those organisations after the recent difficulties in the Powys area. I firmly believe that the only way in which health services of any kind can be provided effectively is through co-operation between all health care agencies, and I applaud the trust's efforts in that respect.
Welsh Office officials have been, and remain, in close touch with the chairman and chief executive of SEWAT and, having seen the new facilities, were very impressed with the technology and systems employed and the capability of the staff. I have been informed by the chief executive of the trust that he would be pleased to welcome the hon. Gentleman to the trust headquarters to view the new command and control centre and to discuss any issues that he might wish to raise, and I recommend that he take up the offer. I am aware that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire is taking advantage of a similar offer and will be visiting the trust on 12 August.
Performance standards are an important indicator of how well an ambulance trust is providing services to the population. However, the current standards tell us only how quickly an ambulance arrives at the scene of an incident; they do not give us details of the usefulness of the ambulance upon arrival, or the actual outcome for the patient following the intervention of ambulance personnel. For that reason, the Government are examining the financial and operational consequences of introducing new criteria-based performance standards in Wales.
The new standards would be based around the need for ambulance services to categorise calls according to urgency and medical need. The highest priority would be reserved for immediately life-threatening conditions such as a heart attack. We hope that that will help us to provide an even better service.
Because of their uniqueness, I accept that such new standards would mean significant challenges for the trust in the Powys area. However, I would look to the health authority and the trust to rise to the challenge and meet any exacting new standards that we decide to introduce.

Mr. Livsey: In the light of his speech, will the Minister tell us whether he is satisfied with SEWAT's performance, or are we due for another review of the configuration of ambulance services in Wales? Is there shortly to be a new configuration?

Mr. Griffiths: I am not satisfied with the way in which SEWAT has been operating. Although it has greatly improved, from as late as May this year I have a three-page catalogue of complaints about the way in which the service operated. Those complaints come from hon. Members, people in the health service and even Machynlleth town council. Many bodies have complained. I can only apologise for what has happened and express my regrets about cases in which there were serious outcomes because of the failures of the trust to act properly.
More paramedics are being trained. There are now 37, and there will be a further four by the end of October. I look forward to significant improvements.
With regard to the review of the ambulance service configuration, it was widely reported last Friday that the Welsh ambulance policy advisory group had recommended a new configuration for ambulance services in Wales. There have been reports in the press of either


one service or three services. It is too early for me to respond to the report. The proposals are undoubtedly radical, and I will want to consider them and have further discussions. I would welcome further observations from Opposition Members or my hon. Friends about the reconfiguration of ambulance services in Wales. An announcement will be made in the not-too-distant future.
I repeat that I am only too well aware of the problems facing SEWAT in the Powys area and the major steps being taken by the trust to address those problems. I am

informed that the earlier difficulties experienced with the introduction of the new command and control centre are being overcome. I expect the people of Powys to have an ambulance service that fully meets their needs and of which they can be proud. Notwithstanding that, I appreciate the need to reshape the ambulance service in Wales so that all people can receive a better service.

It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Freedom of Information

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what actions he has taken to improve public access to Government information. [9706]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. David Clark): The manifesto on which we were elected made it clear that we must rebuild the British people's trust in the way the Government work. Central to this is our commitment to more open government. We shall introduce freedom of information legislation to improve access to Government information. The need to improve access and accountability underpins our reform of the charter programme. We are actively pursuing developments in information technology to enhance and extend the ways in which people can obtain information on Government services.

Dr. Jones: We appreciate that it will take time to enact legislation. In the meantime, will my right hon. Friend look at ways of bolstering the existing code of practice? For example, will he consider amending the usual practice of not disclosing legal advice to the Government? I am thinking of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General's recent refusal, in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), to disclose his legal opinion on arms sales to Indonesia. It is difficult to see how any possible harm arising from such disclosure could outweigh the public's right to know.

Dr. Clark: We have already said that we shall try to examine the code of practice in a more liberal vein. Our priority is to press ahead with freedom of information legislation. That means that most of our resources have been involved in preparing that piece of legislation, not in overhauling the code.

Mr. Baker: In looking to improve public access to Government information, will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster consider the role played by the Minister without Portfolio, who is allegedly responsible to the House through written questions only, notwithstanding the statement by the Leader of the House last week? Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect on the fact that the Minister without Portfolio has refused to give details of journeys he has undertaken at public expense and details of meetings that he has undertaken on behalf of the Government—in fact, he has refused to give any details whatsoever? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister without Portfolio is becoming the Minister without accountability?

Dr. Clark: I cannot answer for the Minister without Portfolio. He answers written questions put to him by hon. Members and I understand that he has a slot in the time allocated to the Department of Culture, Media and Sport in order to answer oral questions in the House regarding his responsibilities for the millennium dome.

Mr. Thompson: While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's assertions about more open government,

will he instruct the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to encourage more open government in Northern Ireland, especially in relation to the Maryfield secretariat and the meetings of the Irish and British council?

Dr. Clark: I may have many powers, but I do not have the power to instruct my right hon. Friend. However, I am sure that she will take note of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mrs. Shephard: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the House how his plans to improve public access to Government information will be implemented in respect of the new joint consultative Cabinet Committee when the Prime Minister admitted yesterday in a written answer that he cannot yet set out its terms of reference? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how that contributes to open government?

Dr. Clark: We have followed the practice of the previous Government in publishing information about the membership of the various Cabinet Committees and we shall continue to do so. We shall continue to give as much information as we possibly can.

Mr. Mitchell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his plans to publish a freedom of information Bill. [9707]

Dr. David Clark: I intend to publish a draft freedom of information Bill early in the new year, which will follow a consultative period after the freedom of information White Paper.

Mr. Mitchell: I am grateful that my right hon. Friend says that because we need a Bill with a definite timetable in this Session. I do not know why he does not take off the peg the Bill proposed earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), now the Minister for Arts, which seemed pretty good to me. The important principle that he should bear in mind is not that it should be watered down but that it should be enforced by an independent commissioner rather than by a House of Commons Committee with a Government majority.

Dr. Clark: My hon. Friend has almost made the case for our not having legislation in this Session. We must get the legislation right. It is no use having a half-baked scheme. My hon. Friend has just raised one of the many issues on which it is right and proper that there should be debate, not only in the House but across the nation.

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his responsibilities for freedom of information in respect of matters relating to Scotland. [9708]

Dr. David Clark: Our proposed freedom of information Act would have application throughout the UK, but, on the assumption that the Scottish people will vote for a Scottish Parliament in September and that Parliament will approve the legislation, it will be for the Scottish Parliament itself to determine the approach of


the Scottish Executive and Scottish public bodies to openness and freedom of information in areas of devolved competence.

Mr. Dalyell: In that case, who resolves differences of opinion between Westminster and Edinburgh?

Dr. Clark: There would, in effect, be two areas of jurisdiction, depending on whether the information in question related to a matter that is reserved or devolved. The law applying to reserved matters would be for Westminster and it would be for the Scottish Parliament to decide and legislate on the level of disclosure on devolved activities carried out in its name.

Sir Patrick Cormack: A moment or two ago, the right hon. Gentleman said he did not want to have anything to do with half-baked schemes. Is not this a classic example of a half-baked scheme? What will be the precise responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Scotland to the House in this matter?

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman's point is covered. Other countries have similar situations. A situation similar to that which exists in the United States of America would apply where there is a central freedom of information Act and, in addition, different Acts relating to it in various states. The United States has two jurisdictions, as will Britain.

Civil Service (Recruitment)

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to review the method of recruitment of civil servants. [9709]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): I have no such plans.

Mrs. Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that among the many achievements of the previous Government was the reduction by 35 per cent. in the number of civil servants by natural wastage? Will he also confirm that the Government's plan to break up the United Kingdom and establish new Assemblies and Parliaments all over the place will inevitably lead to an increase in the number of civil servants—100 more for the Welsh Assembly and 500 more for the Scottish Parliament? Will he tell British taxpayers that those recruits will be obtained by closing the Scottish and Welsh Offices in London because they will not be needed any more?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I can assure the hon. Lady that there are no plans to have other than a unified civil service, that there are no plans afoot either to shed members of the various Departments—

Mrs. Gorman: They have to be shed.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Lady has to make up her mind whether she wants people to be sacked or retained to make the kind of contribution that we would expect them to make, as the majority of civil servants do. The hon. Lady referred to the previous Government. She knows that they managed to transfer 388,000 civil servants to agencies.

We are concerned to maintain a professional civil service that is recruited on the basis of fair and open competition. That will apply to the recruitment of civil servants in the future, as it has in the past.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: One civil servant, the Cabinet Secretary, is to retire at the end of this year. Will the Government look closely at the best methods of recruiting a new Cabinet Secretary, whether it be by the use of headhunters, by advertising or by the traditional method of appointing from within the civil service?

Mr. Kilfoyle: The recruitment of the new Cabinet Secretary is a matter for the civil service and the Prime Minister. We have no objection to using headhunters to advise us, in addition to open advertisements for jobs.

Mr. Hogg: With reference to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), may I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he should have calculated how many civil servants will be retained in the Scottish Office as now is, and how many will be transferred to the departments that will be responsible to the Scottish Parliament? My hon. Friend would like to know what the numbers will be both ways. Surely the House is entitled to an answer.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The House will get the answer at the appropriate time when the calculations have been made.

Electronic Information

Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to permit individuals to supply information to the Government electronically. [9710]

Dr. David Clark: Information technology will revolutionise the way in which citizens relate to government. I am conscious of the success of the child benefit scheme promoted by my hon. Friend in Cambridgeshire. We intend to expand such imaginative schemes. It is a matter of great regret that the previous Government did not have the guts to pick up such projects and run with them.

Mrs. Campbell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply and I am grateful for the interest that he has shown in the project that I pioneered in Cambridgeshire. If we look forward a little, there will be a time quite soon when people will expect to make their tax returns or even their benefit claims through information technology. It would be nice to know whether the Government have any plans to develop those areas.

Dr. Clark: Yes, indeed. One can look at information technology in three ways. First, we use it to modernise our Departments and make us more efficient. Secondly, we have tried to use it to provide information on public services. Thirdly, there is scope for the delivery of public services by electronic means. If the technology moves apace, as it has in the banking world, a large percentage of Government services could be dealt with by electronic means in the near future. One or two pilot schemes are in operation and we hope to put them into full service within the next two years.

Charters

Mr. Hanson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to reform the programme of charters. [9711]

Mr. Kilfoyle: As we announced in June, we are relaunching the programme as part of our wider initiative to improve government. We have already begun a series of visits and meetings to discuss with ordinary people—both users and service providers—how we can make the programme more meaningful and help to ensure the delivery of better public services.

Mr. Hanson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the failures of the Conservative Government's citizens charter programme was that it was essentially a top-down process without any involvement from local people at local level? Will he outline his plans to ensure that real people have real discussions about what those standards mean and that they have real, enforceable rights?

Mr. Forth: Real focus groups.

Mr. Kilfoyle: We intend to introduce a people's panel, which will, indeed, use focus groups. It will also use citizens juries, deliberative polling and telephone interviews. We want to find out what ordinary people want, not what the self-appointed great and good want. The previous Government—that lot over there, who do not use public transport and who use private education and private health care—told others what they ought to have rather than giving them what they wanted.

Mr. Rowe: As the Government claim that their priorities are education, education, education, can we now look forward to a seriously enforceable contract with schools obliging them to deliver something that the public really need and want? Education must be one of the last remaining sectors in which there is an implied contract with the public but absolutely no obligation on schools to deliver.

Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman will know that an increasing number of the 645 charter mark holders are schools. There are 944 applications in the pipeline, including many from schools that see the benefits of obtaining charter marks and assessing their ability to deliver a wider service in their communities.

Freedom of Information

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what plans he has to introduce freedom of information legislation. [9713]

Dr. David Clark: I plan to publish a draft freedom of information Bill in the new year.

Mr. Corbyn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many people will welcome the prospect of genuine freedom of information legislation? Will he ensure that that legislation covers all aspects of the work of the Ministry of Defence and the Department of Trade and Industry so that it will be possible to find out the true cost of the Trident nuclear missile system and the true amount

of the subsidy provided for the arms industry and arms exports? Past Governments have consistently refused to reveal the real cost of the arms industry to our economy.

Dr. Clark: It is important for us to consult as widely as possible on freedom of information legislation, but I warn my hon. Friend that there will have to be exemptions—as there are in every freedom of information Act anywhere in the world. There are issues affecting the security of our nation, and others, on which we cannot provide information freely and fully.

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his White Paper on freedom of information. [9715]

Dr. David Clark: As the House will know, I had originally hoped to be able to publish a freedom of information White Paper before the summer recess, but I am afraid that that simply has not proved possible.

Mr. Canavan: May we have an assurance that the White Paper will end, once and for all, the scandal whereby MI5, MI6 and certain Departments—particularly the Ministry of Defence—have for years been allowed to behave like secret societies, to such an extent that people in this country have had to resort to United States freedom of information legislation to find out what is happening here?

Dr. Clark: I think that the new freedom of information legislation will change the culture of politics in Whitehall. It will introduce the presumption that information will be available to individuals unless there are good reasons for it not to be. We will, of course, study examples in the United States and other countries along with Westminster models to get the balance right, so that the individual can have as much freedom as possible without harming our country's interests.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Will the Minister stiffen up that rather mealy-mouthed answer? Some Opposition Members—and, I hope, some Labour Members—actually believe that certain areas of national security should remain secret and should not be wide open to people who might undermine our society. Before some hon. Members turn that into a joke, let me remind the House that we are fighting terrorism in one part of the United Kingdom. That is not a joke.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman ought to have listened a little more attentively. I made it clear that nothing would be revealed if it affected the security of our nation.

Mr. Derek Foster: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in the wake of the Scott report, which revealed a disturbing culture of secrecy and endemic dissembling as being endemic in our system of government, freedom of information legislation became an integral part of the Prime Minister's agenda of restoring trust with the British people? If that is true, will my right hon. Friend, with the Prime Minister's full authority, root out any resistance to freedom of information legislation wherever it lies in the Government?

Dr. Clark: I will certainly do that. I passionately believe in the legislation: it will do a great deal to restore trust between the citizens of Britain and us the Government.

Food Standards Agency

Mr. Paice: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he expects to publish his proposals for a food standards agency. [9716]

Dr. David Clark: The Government propose to publish a White Paper in the autumn and intend to introduce legislation to establish a food standards agency as soon as legislative time allows. The legislation will be based on the excellent work of Professor James to which there have been more than 650 responses in a consultative exercise that was launched by the Government. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will today make a statement on the responses received to Professor James's report on an agency and on measures being taken in the interim to improve food safety arrangements.

Mr. Paice: May I take it that it will be two or three years before the agency is up and running? In the meantime, what are the Government and the right hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that the safety of British food is properly communicated? In particular, what is he doing about the many Labour-controlled local education authorities that are still banning the use of beef in school meals despite the fact that the Minister and his colleagues rightly declare that British beef is safe?

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman is right to remind the House of the scandalous state into which the Conservative Government brought the reputation of British food. I chair the Cabinet Committee that is overseeing the situation. We have put in place interim arrangements to rectify the situation and we think that they will be able to deal with any food incidents that occur. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has brought together all his civil servants who deal with food under one management chain, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health will soon make further announcements on how he intends to reorganise his Department to deal more effectively with food safety. I concede that the Government have a terrible legacy from the Conservatives, but the Labour Government will put it right.

Mr. Tyler: Can the Chancellor be more specific about the timetable? He has acknowledged that there will be a period for consultation on the White Paper and that that will be followed by legislation. It is likely that the new agency will not be in operation until April 2000. In the meantime, the situation is deteriorating. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that that is a legacy from the previous regime, but there is a crisis of confidence in food safety in the United Kingdom now and worry about the import of substandard food—notably beef—from other countries. I press the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what action plan he and his colleagues have now to improve confidence in British food because lack of confidence, which is surely unjustified and perhaps irrational, nevertheless exists.

Dr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. A great deal of the public's lack of confidence in British food is unjustified because it and some of the standards that apply to it are very high. Some Opposition Members

shared our pleasure when my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food achieved success in Brussels to ensure that the standards that apply in abattoirs and to beef coming to Britain are the same as those that apply in Britain. We have put in place new, interim measures to bring together the scientists and food experts in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Department of Health under a unified chain of command to try to ensure that they can respond more effectively. Further suggestions and improvements will be announced this afternoon by my right hon. Friend.

Focus Groups

Mr. Jenkin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what estimate he has made of the cost to his Department of the proposed arrangements for consulting focus groups. [9717]

Mr. Kilfoyle: We are currently considering ways of consulting and involving ordinary people more in decisions about the delivery of public services. Ideas are at an early stage and I am therefore unable to give estimated costs, but costs to my Department would be met from within existing budgets.

Mr. Jenkin: Under what parliamentary vote would the Minister be spending that money?

Mr. Kilfoyle: It would be the vote accorded to the Cabinet Office (Office of Public Service).

Mr. David Heath: Will the Minister consider arranging for a focus group to be brought together in Somerset so that he can find out whether among ordinary people, as his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy described them earlier, he can find one person who agrees that Somerset county council should be meeting today to reduce its local government expenditure, cutting teachers' jobs and reducing social services as a result of Government diktat, rather than following the expressed wishes of the people through the ballot box?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I would not dream of commenting on the decisions made by Somerset county council, but I will certainly consider Somerset as a potential venue for one of the focus groups that we shall convene in order to find out what people think of the public services on offer.

Mr. Coaker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in contrast to the cynicism of Opposition Members, the real purpose of focus groups is to improve legislation and policy by finding out what people really think about what the Government are doing? Is not that the way forward for a Government who want to listen and to understand what people have to say? Are not focus groups, far from being the joke that the Opposition seem to think they are, a way forward for the Government which will be welcomed by most people?

Mr. Kilfoyle: I agree that focus groups are one tool which we can use to find out what people want—rather than do as the previous Government did and tell people what they ought to have. It is a bit rich for a Conservative


Member to criticise a party with an overwhelming mandate that wants to rebuild the bond of trust with the people.

Mr. Gray: I was interested to hear the Minister refer earlier to the people's panel. Does he agree that there is already a people's panel and that this is it? Why does he need another?

Mr. Kilfoyle: When we produce our White Paper on better government, we shall talk about accountability, accessibility, responsiveness, efficiency and open government. Parliamentary accountability will be a key element in that.

Freedom of Information

Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he will make a statement on his Department's White Paper on freedom of information. [9718]

Dr. David Clark: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan).

Mr. Mackinlay: When my right hon. Friend hears Conservative Members praying in aid the nation's security as a way of objecting to the freedom of information legislation that he proposes, does it occur to him that that is Toryspeak for "Please don't reveal the files from the past 18 years"? They must be thinking of items such as Westland, guns to Iraq and some of the peculiar activities of some of the deep forces in the security forces during the industrial relations disputes of years past.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is necessary for us to have full disclosure and to abandon the absurd and undemocratic 30-year rule on the disclosure of public records? Should not we have transparency of government with regard not only to the Tories' stewardship over the past 18 years but to future Governments, too? Will my right hon. Friend end the 30-year rule—an action which would make for a more democratic society in which records were disclosed early?

Dr. Clark: I am actively examining the 30-year rule with a great deal of sympathy for the idea of deciding how we can relax it. There are massive cost and resource implications, and although I hope that we can make progress it may have to take place incrementally.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider in the White Paper the rule that stops one Government seeing the files of another? Was it not rather difficult for the previous Government to justify the sale of Hawk jets to Indonesia when the decision was made under the previous Labour Administration, a few years after the invasion of East Timor? Will the right hon. Gentleman now publish the advice that was given, with special reference to the ambassador in Indonesia who seemed to think that it was a good idea for the Indonesians to invade East Timor? Let us have it all out in the open.

Dr. Clark: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. The agreement that files from

outgoing Governments be closed is a long-standing convention of the House and of government, and it would be inadvisable to change it. If we do relax the 30-year rule, it is more likely that the information that he seeks will be made available. That goes without saying.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Sir Michael Spicer: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 30 July. [9736]

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I attended a meeting of the Labour party's national executive. I had meetings with Cabinet colleagues and others. Later today, I shall host a reception at 10 Downing street.

Sir Michael Spicer: Looking back on the past 96 days, and with the benefit of hindsight, what does the Prime Minister think has been his worst mistake—losing control over interest rates, raiding pension funds, robbing the reserves, or what?

The Prime Minister: Certainly our greatest triumph has been to remove the Conservative Government. As for my greatest mistake, that is for me to know and for the hon. Gentleman to find out.

Mr. Fabian Hamilton: Will the Prime Minister join me in expressing sympathy for all those killed and injured by the appalling bomb in Jerusalem this morning? Will he urge all those involved in the middle east peace process to continue their efforts towards a lasting peace?

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am sure that I speak for everyone in the House when I express my deepest sympathy for all those families who are bereaved in Israel today and for the families of those injured. It was an appalling terrorist outrage. Our deepest condolences go to the people of Israel and to the Jewish community in this country. I can assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to do all we can to work for peace in the middle east.

Mr. Hague: On behalf of the Opposition, I should like to associate myself with the Prime Minister's last remarks.
Given the statement of the Financial Secretary yesterday that the Government would investigate tax avoidance schemes relating to offshore trusts in Jersey, what advice does the Prime Minister have for the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness in Europe, the noble Lord Simon, who has £1 million invested in an offshore trust in Jersey in order to pay less tax?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that there has been any more vile and scurrilous campaign than the one mounted against David Simon. This is a man who has given up earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to serve the Government and to give public service, and has done so without any payment at all. Instead of vilifying him, the Conservative party should support that


initiative. It only shows how remote the Conservative party is from the business community that it should attack him in that way.

Mr. Hague: Is there not a strong smell of hypocrisy coming from the Government? Does the Prime Minister recall his policy statement three years ago, which said:
All governments owe it to their people to take action against the persistent few who … shelter their wealth overseas",
and made specific reference to Jersey? Is it not breathtaking hypocrisy to criticise that and then for a Minister to take advantage of it? Is it not time that members of the Government stopped preaching one thing and doing another?

The Prime Minister: The ones who have been preaching one thing and doing another are Conservative Members who say that they want close links with business, but vilify a business person who comes in to give service free to his country. Lord Simon will be subject to the same rules as everybody else. The campaign mounted by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) is absolutely disgraceful, and I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition associates himself with it.

Mr. Hague: The fact that a Minister is not taking any payment does not mean that he does not have to follow everybody else's rules. What advice has the Prime Minister given to the Minister about the suitability of handling gas liberalisation and energy taxation while hanging on to £2 million-worth of shares in BP? Does the Prime Minister think that that is an acceptable conflict of interest?

The Prime Minister: The Minister has obeyed all the rules all the way throughout. If the right hon. Gentleman knows of anything to the contrary, perhaps he will come to the Dispatch Box and say so. The Minister has retained the BP shares because he is obliged to do so. Having been the chairman of BP, if he got rid of them he would fall foul of the rules on insider trading. That is precisely what happened in the case of the former Deputy Prime Minister and of Paul Channon, now Lord Channon. If the right hon. Gentleman knows of any case in which the Minister has disobeyed the rules, let him come to the Dispatch Box and say so, or withdraw that slur.

Mr. Hague: Is the Prime Minister aware that "Questions of Procedure for Ministers" states:
Where there is a doubt it will almost always be better to relinquish or dispose of the interest but in such cases the Prime Minister must be the final judge"?
Will the Prime Minister tell us how he reconciles the European Union documents which I have here, on agreement on liberalisation of gas supply and restructuring the Community framework for the taxation of energy products, with holding £2 million-worth of shares in one of the world's largest energy companies?

The Prime Minister: That is really not good enough. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to make an allegation of that nature, it is not good enough. I have explained why the shares were not disposed of—because it would have been wrong to dispose of them. The Minister was acting on the advice of the permanent secretary at the

Department of Trade and Industry and entirely in accordance with the rules of "Questions of Procedure for Ministers". If the right hon. Gentleman has any evidence at all of any rule broken, let him say so. The past Conservative Government indulged in appalling conduct, but just because they did it does not mean that they can slur us with doing what they used to do.

Mr. Hague: Was it not foolish of the Prime Minister to place the hon. Gentleman in a position where he is the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness of the United Kingdom, but is not supposed to take decisions that have a bearing on one of the country's largest companies? Has the Prime Minister not noticed that even his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing)—he knows a thing or two about shareholding—has said this morning
I think that people like Lord Simon … Either … must divest themselves of their shares, or divest themselves of office in Her Majesty's Government"?
Is that not a fair statement?

The Prime Minister: No, it is not a fair statement, for the reason that I have just given. I asked the right hon. Gentleman, quite specifically, to state what rule had been broken—three times I asked him and he failed to do so. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) will be out in a moment.

The Prime Minister: I asked the Leader of the Opposition to state what rule had been broken, and he failed to do so because no rule has been broken. The Minister has behaved with complete propriety throughout. He has followed precisely the procedure that was followed in the case of the Deputy Prime Minister in the previous Government. I really think that the right hon. Gentleman should go away and grow up and ask more sensible questions.

Mr. Hague: When the Prime Minister gets patronising, Madam Speaker, you know that he has lost the argument. The fact is that the Minister has held shareholdings in BP while appearing to make decisions that would have related to BP. Is it not time that the Prime Minister got a grip on that matter and took a leaf out of the BP annual accounts, written by the noble Lord himself, which state:
Only the highest standards of … openness and accountability will do"?
Is not that the standard by which the Government should be judged?

The Prime Minister: My noble Friend has maintained the highest standards of openness and probity. For the fourth time, the right hon. Gentleman has come to the Dispatch Box and failed to say what rule has been broken; if he believes that rules have been broken, perhaps he should go outside the House and repeat that allegation where it can be properly tested. He will not do so, because he knows that he cannot. He was part of a Government who fell beneath the proper standards. Lord Simon has behaved with complete probity and acted on proper advice throughout. The fact that the Conservative party is


attacking him for working for free in the public service shows how remote it is from business people in Britain today.

Ms Stuart: I welcome the Government's initiative to set up literacy summer schools—two schools in my constituency will benefit—but how will we monitor their success and their long-term viability?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is an important initiative. It will enable us to raise standards of literacy and numeracy in our schools which, I am afraid, are still far below those in other countries. Indeed, it is the sad case that almost 50 per cent. of our 11-year-olds do not reach the proper standards of literacy and numeracy. The literacy summer schools will be part of the programme that will help to raise standards. That is the only way of getting the 21st-century education that we want and deserve.

Lichfield, Burntwood and District

Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the long-term effects of Her Majesty's Government's policies on the people and businesses of the city of Lichfield, Burntwood and the surrounding district. [9737]

The Prime Minister: I am delighted to say that many benefits will have been noticed by the hon. Gentleman's constituents, including the 350 young people in Lichfield who are unemployed, some of whom will benefit from the welfare-to-work programme; the 10,000 people in Lichfield on the national health service waiting lists, who will benefit from the cuts in bureaucracy and the extra £1.2 billion going into the health service next year; and the 600 or more five, six and seven-year-olds in his constituency who are taught in class sizes of more than 30. Added to the cut in corporation tax, that is a very good deal for his constituents.

Mr. Fabricant: Notwithstanding that answer, is the Prime Minister aware of the feeling of injustice in Staffordshire over the amount that is paid per pupil in Staffordshire schools? Is he aware that Staffordshire is at the very bottom of the list of shire counties? That is the view of both Government and Opposition Members with Staffordshire constituencies.
The previous Government conducted a review of different ways of calculating the standard spending assessment. It was not a successful review from Staffordshire's point of view. What can the Prime Minister offer the people of Staffordshire? Can he tell parents in Staffordshire that there will be fairness in the amount given per pupil?

The Prime Minister: I obviously cannot make specific commitments on financing, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there was great concern throughout the country about the way in which the standard assessment was being done, not least when people compared, for example, what was given to Westminster with what was given to other authorities. We are considering how the system can be made fairer. I believe that people in the hon. Gentleman's area, like people elsewhere in the country, will benefit from the considerable increase in expenditure on education announced in the Budget.

Engagements

Mr. Beith: Does the Prime Minister recall that, before the general election, he gave strong support to the case for dualling the A1 from Newcastle to Edinburgh and that shadow Ministers put it in writing that it would not be affected by any moratorium or review of the roads programme? Does he still agree that the gap in the strategic road system—the only all-weather route between London and Edinburgh—ought not to remain, and will he make that known to Ministers, because there seems to be some delay? [9738]

The Prime Minister: It is a stretch of road with which I am well familiar, and the right hon. Gentleman is right to say that dualling that part of the Al is an important item. He will know that that is currently under consideration. We cannot guarantee a successful outcome, but it is essential that the right infrastructure links are maintained in that part of the world, because it is extremely important for the business that crosses the border between Scotland and England.

Mr. Tipping: Is it not clear that one of the most damning legacies of the Tory years is the state of disrepair of our schools? In Nottinghamshire alone, there are £111 million-worth of outstanding repairs. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that local education authorities make urgent bids for the £1 billion announced today, so that at least a start can be made on rebuilding our schools? It must be the case that investment in education is investment in the future. [9739]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, the money that has been given—more than £1 billion for the school repairs programme over the lifetime of this Parliament—is the biggest programme that has been introduced for many years. I urge local education authorities and schools to submit their plans so that we can put our schools into a proper state of repair. Many school buildings and many schools in the country fall way beneath what is acceptable if our children are to be taught properly. I am delighted at the announcement today. I hope that my hon. Friend, others of my hon. Friends, and Opposition Members will encourage local education authorities to come forward with proposals.

Mr. Ashdown: May I, in this last Prime Minister's Questions before the summer recess, bring the Prime Minister back to an issue on which his Government have been rather coy over the summer, but which I believe will dominate our politics in the winter? If I were to say to the Prime Minister that one of his Health Ministers has now announced that his Government will spend £350 million less next winter on the health service than the outgoing Conservative Government would have done, would he be surprised?

The Prime Minister: As I have already said, we have inherited the spending plans of the previous Administration. We are sticking to those, but we are putting in the colossal sum of £1.2 billion extra next year. [HON. MEMBERS: "Next year."] Yes, I know that that is next year. We have inherited the proposals of the previous Government for this year, but the money for next year is helping health authorities to plan ahead. Of course, as


a result of the changes that are being made, we are gradually reducing the huge burdens of bureaucracy in the internal market that the Conservatives introduced, and which we want to abandon.

Mr. Ashdown: But the right hon. Gentleman precisely has not inherited the previous Government's figures. He has reduced them by the impact of inflation. In case he has forgotten, that was precisely specified in a parliamentary answer given on 7 July. Unfortunately for our hospitals, there is to be a reduction of £350 million against what the previous Government spent. Let me put a more specific question to the Prime Minister. One of his personal five early promises to the electorate at the election was that he would cut waiting lists. Will waiting lists be cut this winter?

The Prime Minister: It is precisely in order to cut waiting lists that we have taken the measures that we have already outlined to cut bureaucracy. The plans that we have inherited are precisely the plans that we are putting through, but more money is going into the NHS as a result of the decisions announced in the Budget. I know that decisions on public finance are difficult, but, in the past few weeks, the hon. Gentleman's party has called for greater expenditure on local government, pensions, young people, health and education. With the best will in the world, we have to make sure that we make the arrangements necessary to bring the large budget deficit down. Within that, the Government will put extra resources into the health service by getting rid of the internal market and by giving more cash to the NHS.

Mrs. Gilroy: Does my right hon. Friend understand the real anger that South West Water consumers feel at their high water bills, especially as they are imposed by a company that, although it said a few weeks ago that it could not afford the windfall tax without borrowing money, has found £9 million to buy an American firm, and at yesterday's annual general meeting confirmed that it would pay out the highest dividends ever—20 per cent. more than last year? Does my right hon. Friend share with me the wish that the review that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has in hand on utility regulation will ensure that consumers have much more robust representation of their interests? [9740]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is, of course, right. Part of the purpose of the review is to make sure that we construct a long-term framework that is fair to consumers as well as shareholders. Since water privatisation, water and sewerage bills have risen far above the rate of inflation. The profits and dividends of those leading utility companies confirm that we were right to say that the windfall tax could be paid and that we could give our young people the skills and jobs that they needed.

Mr. Wells: Does the Prime Minister agree with Dr. Festing of Friends of the Earth that Labour has already begun to betray its green promises? Will he condemn the proposals of the Minister for London and Construction and Labour-dominated Hertfordshire county council to build thousands and thousands of houses in the green belt? [9741]

The Prime Minister: That is absolute nonsense. When one investigated the reports in the newspapers that we had announced some great new policy on the green belt, one discovered that that policy is based on the Green Paper published in November by the hon. Gentleman's Government. The policy of this Government has not changed since the policy of the previous Government, so if the hon. Gentleman is criticising us, he must be criticising them, too. I suspect that his question is based on a misapprehension.

Mr. Pond: Is the Prime Minister aware that, only in the past few hours, the contract has been signed for the brand new £115 million hospital for Dartford and Gravesham, breaking the Tory logjam on the construction of new hospitals? It will provide the hospital for which my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) have campaigned for so long and which they richly deserve. Will he now ensure that the remaining 13 projects under the revamped private finance initiative are brought forward quickly so that people in other areas, in common with my constituents, can see that, whereas the previous Government made promises, this Government keep them? [9742]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am delighted at the news that the contract has been signed for the Dartford and Gravesham hospital. We will make progress on the other 13 remaining projects as quickly as we possibly can. It is a fitting tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and the energy and vigour of this Government that, whereas the previous Government talked about the project for months and months, they did absolutely nothing to deliver it, but, in three months, we have delivered it.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) was correct to raise the issue of the green belt because a report in The Sunday Times at the weekend quoted one of the Prime Minister's Ministers at the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Does the Prime Minister realise that in Gloucestershire such remarks about building on green fields as opposed to brown-field sites will cause great alarm? Does he also agree that, although it may be cheaper and more convenient to build on green-field sites, the long-term costs to future generations would be enormous? [9743]

The Prime Minister: That is precisely why I said to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford that my hon. Friend the Minister was merely setting the same targets as the previous Government had. The policy has not changed in any shape or form. A Green Paper was published in November by the hon. Gentleman's Government, and we are considering the responses to it. There is no intention to cut great swathes through the green belt, as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. We support the idea of the green belt.

Mr. Hanson: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to see the international crime victimisation report which was published today and which shows that, after


18 years of Conservative Government, Britain has the highest level of car robberies, burglaries and assaults of any of the 11 industrialised nations? Will he confirm to the House what action the new Labour Government intend to take to reduce crime? Will he confirm once and for all that, whatever else it may be, the Conservative party no longer has the right to call itself the party of law and order? [9744]

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Conservative party was the party of law and disorder, because crime doubled during the Conservative years. This Government will take action to reduce it, including action on juvenile offending in particular to try to halve the time that it takes to get juvenile offenders to court. We will also take action against anti-social behaviour in our local communities and, later today, we shall announce action on sentencing.
We are taking action on crime; we are being tough on crime, but we are also addressing the causes of crime. That is why the welfare-to-work programme, which will give jobs to young people, and improvements in our education system give us the best chance of creating a decent, civilised society in which we are more likely to breed responsible citizens.

Mr. Greenway: What promise did the Prime Minister make to Mr. Roy Hughes, the former Member for Newport, East to make way for the hon. Gentleman who formerly represented Stratford-on-Avon? According to newspaper reports, Mr. Hughes is attributed as having said that he was offered a peerage. If that comes to light during the next few days, would it not show that, even within a 100 days, his Government are steeped in hypocrisy? [9745]

The Prime Minister: I have no intention of commenting on any peers list—but anyone on it will be there on merit. My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Howarth), now a Minister, was selected on one member, one vote—by a rather larger electorate than chose the present Conservative leader.

Mr. Bill Michie: I welcome the steps already taken by the Labour Government in their first few months of power to raise standards and optimism for the future. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need a strong manufacturing base for sustained economic growth?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree entirely. It is of course important for manufacturing and other parts of industry that we achieve stability for the long term. That is precisely why we took the measures in the Budget to curb the deficit; it is also why we have taken action on interest rates, so as to make absolutely sure that we squeeze any inflation out of the system. We must not go back to the time that followed the last Conservative boom. When it went bust, interest rates were at 15 per cent. for a year and mortgage rates were above 15 per cent. for six months or more. I never want to go back to the days of that Tory boom and bust.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Prime Minister perhaps visit Cornwall later this year? If so, I hope that he will not fall ill, because if he does he will find that he is 40 minutes away from an accident and emergency

unit—that is the average. He will also find that cottage hospitals across the county are facing permanent closure this winter because of this year's cash shortfalls. Does he agree that it makes no sense to close hospitals now if what he says about increased Government funding next year, and thereafter, is right? [9746]

The Prime Minister: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right to say that many hospitals face a very difficult situation, but as I told the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) earlier, it is important to put the public finances on a stable footing. There is fresh money coming into the national health service, not just next year but this year, at this very moment, as a result of cuts in bureaucracy and other changes. In their Budget submission to us, the Liberal Democrats asked us to put an extra £500 million or £600 million into the NHS: we have put double that amount into it.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Is the Prime Minister aware that the people of Scotland warmly welcome the White Paper on devolution? Does he plan to come to Scotland and spend some time in Midlothian? We would welcome him there to the yes, yes campaign—he would certainly get a yes, yes vote for his visit.

The Prime Minister: I very much look forward to taking part in the campaign for Scottish devolution. It is important that Scotland should have the chance of a greater say in its own affairs. I am delighted, too, that the Conservative party has now said that it will abide by the verdict of the referendums. That gives us the chance to ensure that the people of Scotland and Wales get their say and that we can put the constitution on a proper, secure, modern footing for the 21st century.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Does the Prime Minister intend to continue appointing Members of this House who represent Scottish constituencies as Ministers with responsibility for English matters? [9747]

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, all Members of the House are treated equally—that is, should be, and will remain, the position. Possibly the most authoritative statement on the subject came from a former Conservative Prime Minister in the early 1960s, when the issue of Stormont was raised. He made it quite clear why all Members of Parliament should be treated equally.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Prime Minister accept the thanks of my constituents for a job well started, and their wish that he should enjoy a well-deserved summer break—[Interruption.] Despite the jeers from the Opposition, I am sure that everyone agrees that he ought to enjoy a good summer holiday. When he comes back, however, will he look at the problems that came up at the Earth summit—in particular, the difficulties of persuading the United States and the major oil companies to do something about global warming? Will he also consider the need to agree on effective targets at the Kyoto conference? [9748]

The Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes for the holiday and I hope that everyone has a good holiday. It is obviously very important that the Kyoto conference is a success. There is now a better chance of that happening as a result of the UN General Assembly special session. My hon. Friend will know that the European Union has committed itself to very tough targets for the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions. I was delighted by the recent speech of President Clinton, which presaged a different attitude on the part of the United States. If it is possible to do so, we should get out of Kyoto a set of binding limits that allow us to take the measures necessary to put our environment on a stable footing for the long term.

Mr. Jenkin: May I ask the Prime Minister to clarify an answer that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that it is perfectly all right for a Minister who is a major shareholder in one of our leading energy companies to lead Government policy on gas liberalisation in the

European Community, or will he give an undertaking that such obvious conflicts of interest, for as long as the Minister has to hold those shares, will not now take place? [9749]

The Prime Minister: Both the hon. Gentleman and the Leader of the Opposition should have noticed the more serious Members on the Opposition Benches shaking their heads as they were speaking. We are following precisely the procedures that have always been laid down. There is no conflict of interest and my noble Friend has followed precisely the advice of the permanent secretary at the DTI. There has been no impropriety whatever. If there is any evidence of that, let it be produced, but five times his right hon. Friend failed to produce it.
We all know exactly what the game is here. Because, under the previous Government, there were allegations proven of misconduct, the Opposition want to smear the new Government and try to pretend that all politics is the same. Well, all politics is not the same and this Labour Government is not that old Tory Government.

Criminal Justice

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Madam Speaker, I wish to make a statement about improving the criminal justice system.
This morning, a major survey of crime victimisation in 11 industrialised countries was published. According to that survey, England and Wales top the league for robbery, for assaults, for burglary and for car crime. The results of the survey confirm the degree to which, in this country over the past two decades, crime has become an everyday experience. Yet, while crime has soared, the criminal justice system has become less effective. Over the past 18 years, crime has doubled, but the numbers convicted of those crimes have fallen by a third.
My overriding priority is to secure the safety of the public. The survey published this morning shows how far we have to go to do just that, but we have already embarked on reform of the Crown Prosecution Service and in this Session we will be putting our crime and disorder Bill before Parliament. The Bill will tackle anti-social behaviour, particularly from young offenders, which makes a misery of the lives of so many law-abiding people of our country. Today, I am announcing other steps in the long-overdue process of establishing an effective criminal justice system.
First, there are delays. Delays clog up the system and currently 12,000 prisoners are waiting on remand. When cases take too long to come to trial, taxpayers' money is wasted and the link between crime and punishment is broken. We have to improve the speed and efficiency of the criminal justice system. In particular, we are pledged to halve the time it takes to get persistent young offenders from arrest to sentence.
Very late in the day, the previous Government commissioned a review of delay. When that review, the Narey report, was published in February, I described it as showing the "neglect and complacency" of the then Government
in their running of the criminal justice system"—[Official Report, 27 February 1997; Vol. 291, c. 433.]
I will act on the Narey report. One of the most striking benefits should come from implementing new arrangements for case preparation that will enable many straightforward guilty plea cases to be disposed of within a day or two of charge. That will help to revive the concept of summary justice on which the magistrates court system was founded—local justice delivered in a quick, fair and straightforward way.
Further details of my response to the Narey report will be given in a written answer to the House today.
To combat further delay, existing custody time limits will be enforced more effectively and we shall set new statutory time limits for the preparation of both adult and young offender cases. I also want to strengthen the ability of magistrates courts to manage cases more effectively.
We shall introduce tougher bail conditions to deter defendants from abusing their bail.
I intend to implement the provisions in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 under which magistrates will hear an indication of plea before deciding

whether a case needs to go to the Crown court. That will enable magistrates to deal quickly with defendants who plead guilty.
Our manifesto promised
an effective sentencing system … to ensure greater consistency and stricter punishment for serious repeat offenders.
We are therefore proposing that judges in the Court of Appeal should prepare sentencing guidelines for all the main criminal offences.
Prison is necessary for those whose crimes and behaviour require it. Before the end of this year, I will implement section 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, providing automatic life sentences for second-time serious sexual and violent offenders. The crime and disorder Bill will provide for extended supervision of other sexual and violent offenders after their release from prison.
Provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Act setting minimum sentences for persistent burglars and drug dealers were significantly improved by Labour amendments, which will give judges sufficient discretion to avoid injustice. In the light of that, I therefore intend to implement the mandatory minimum seven-year sentence for third-time drug traffickers later this year.
We shall consider implementing the three-year minimum sentence for third-time domestic burglars in the light of resources and the Prison Service's capacity, as the previous Government proposed. The previous Administration's plans meant that this provision was unlikely to have any appreciable effect until some time in 2001.
As promised in our manifesto, courts will be required to explain, when sentencing, what the sentence means in practice. They should state the time to be spent in prison, the period of supervision after release and the period during which the offender might be recalled to prison.
These requirements will allow the victim, the offender and the public to understand the true nature of the sentence. They are superior to the complex provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, constructed by the previous Government, which we criticised in opposition and which we do not intend to implement.
On custodial sentences for young offenders, the courts need a more coherent and flexible set of powers to lock up that small group of persistent young offenders who wreak havoc in their communities. As I announced on 3 July, the courts will have available to them from April 1998 the secure training order. We are also proposing to give the youth court the power to order the secure remand of such offenders.
Ninety-four per cent. of convicted offenders are dealt with in the community, and all but a tiny handful of those who are imprisoned return to the community at the end of their sentence. Ensuring the effectiveness of community punishments, and of community supervision for released prisoners, is therefore of the utmost importance.
The courts must have confidence that community punishments are administered correctly. Offenders must receive their punishments in full. If they refuse to comply, they must be brought back to court. Enforcement must improve. The No. 1 priority of the probation service is—and must be—to protect the public.
There should be nothing soft whatever about community punishment. It is absurd that a community penalty requires an offender's consent, and that requirement will be brought to an end.
I also want to strengthen the credibility of probation supervision. I am looking at a number of issues, including the scope to take away the passports of those on community punishments, making it impossible for them to travel abroad for the duration of their sentence. Recent trials of electronic tagging have proved remarkably successful. In order to build on this, the three pilot areas in Norfolk, Manchester and Berkshire will each be extended to neighbouring counties to cover at least twice the population. I shall also pilot tagging for those on bail as well for fine defaulters, persistent petty offenders and juveniles.
As the whole House knows, there is a clear link between crime, drugs and disorder. Areas with high levels of disorder have four times the level of violent crime as other areas. That is why we shall bring in community safety orders in the crime and disorder Bill to provide tough, effective sanctions against such neighbourhood disorder. Moreover, a new drug testing and treatment order will be a further powerful community punishment to help break the vicious circle of drug dependency and crime.
We are already reviewing the probation service and its relationship to the Prison Service. Those two services should work together more effectively to protect the public through integrated programmes both in prison and in the community. I have also announced a new diploma in probation studies, focusing on the vital role of the probation service in protecting the public and reducing crime. The probation service is a profession in its own right. Probation training should therefore no longer be linked to social work education.
The use of the fine has declined in recent years, despite its good record on discouraging reoffending. Concerns about current enforcement procedures are being addressed by a working group led by the Lord Chancellor's Department. We will consider any changes that might be necessary to ensure that the fine retains its proper place in the courts' sentencing armoury.
We shall also do more to help victims of crime. The Prime Minister announced an extra £1 million a year for Victim Support, making the total £13 million. We are reviewing ways of protecting victims and vulnerable witnesses from defendants who try to bully them into silence.
As I said, the present high levels of crime and disorder will take time to reverse. We are making a start by tackling crime at its roots. We must intervene early to change the behaviour of young offenders. We shall make it clear that the aim of the youth justice system is to protect the public and reduce reoffending. A national network of youth offender teams will implement much tougher regimes of community interventions. A new national board for youth justice will oversee change.
The whole House knows that crime breeds when individuals are left without a stake in society. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor's welfare-to-work programme for the young and long-term unemployed should reduce both the temptation and the opportunity for crime. Getting a job is the best thing that any ex-offender can do. I am therefore pleased to announce that all young people leaving prison will have direct access to our new deal for the young unemployed. After an initial gateway period

starting immediately they leave prison, during which they will receive intensive job search assistance, ex-offenders will be guaranteed a place on one of the four new deal options.
In the 18 years since 1979, crime has doubled, yet the number of criminals convicted by the courts has dropped by a third. Such a record of failure cannot easily be reversed. This afternoon, however, I have outlined the first steps towards building a criminal justice system which the public have a right to expect—a system that is fair, swift and effective in tackling crime and disorder. I commend the proposals to the House.

Dr. Brian Mawhinney: I thank the Home Secretary for his courtesy in letting me have an advance look at his statement. It is a long statement, full of detailed proposals and, in the time available, he will understand if I do not touch on all the points that he raised, not least because I do not want overly to burden the House. I assure him, however, that when he produces a Bill, we shall examine it in great detail.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's acceptance of large parts of Conservative Government policy. May I tell him, as he would not have been able to see, that, judging from the expression on the faces of many hon. Members behind him, his proposals will get a warmer reception on the Opposition Benches.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the crime rate rose faster in each decade between the end of the second world war and 1979 than in the past 18 years? Will he publish the appropriate figures? Does he also agree that the crime rate has dropped by 10 per cent. over the past four years, reversing a trend of 40 years under both Governments? Does he recognise that a reduction of about half a million crimes a year means millions fewer victims? Why can he not welcome that?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the last international crime survey in 1992 covering 20 countries found that there was less chance of being murdered or violently or sexually assaulted in Britain than in many other western countries? Why did he not refer to the survey of 18 OECD countries in 1993–95, which showed that England and Wales had the largest fall in recorded crime?
Although I welcome much of what the right hon. Gentleman has announced, is he aware that the public will be disappointed that he is taking such a relaxed and disinterested stance on house burglary? Why does he not recognise that burglary is an invasion of privacy and possessions and frequently a destroyer of peace of mind and quality of life?
Why does the Secretary of State not think that burglars who commit three offences should not be given a minimum sentence of three years, or is his criminal policy simply being dictated by the Treasury? Instead of dithering, reviewing and contemplating, will he now commit to introducing that sensible measure on the sentencing of repeat burglars by 1999, as we were committed to do?
Even on tagging, the right hon. Gentleman equivocates. What has caused him to accept the principle of tagging, when the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), a Front-Bench Labour spokesman on the Criminal Justice Bill, said in Standing Committee A on 18 December 1990:
Electronic monitoring is a dangerous and irrelevant concept. It is wrong in principle … It has enormous implications for civil liberties"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 December 1990; c. 274.]


Given Labour Members' objection "in principle" to tagging, why should the House now believe the Secretary of State's latest plans? Is this just another Labour policy likely to be jettisoned?
Speaking of jettisoning principles, does the right hon. Gentleman recall the Prime Minister describing secure training orders as "a sham"? Whom are we to believe? Who is trying to make the public feel good, without being willing to act in the public interest?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that I welcome his new commitment to tougher sentences for violent and sexual offences? Is he aware that we will also support him as he advances our proposals for repeat drug offenders?
In 1995, the right hon. Gentleman called our proposals
a bizarre mixture of complacency and desperation".
Is he aware that his hon. Friend the present Minister of State claimed in 1996 that they were "a farce"? Is he also aware that we welcome the Government's conversion to the public interest, which we have long promoted, but that we shall closely monitor his application?
Does the Secretary of State accept that we will support any new, useful attempts to tackle delay, and that it was the previous Government who introduced custody time limits and set up the Narey inquiry, on which he is to act?
Parts of today's statement will give some encouragement to the public. However, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise also that it will be widely welcomed by burglars, from whom a threat has been lifted? Does he realise that he may soon be deemed partially responsible by the victims of burglars, whose experience of that crime the right hon. Gentleman refuses to take seriously?

Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman shows the same levels of competence in dealing with this statement as he demonstrated as chairman of the Conservative party in taking it to its greatest defeat this century. He talked about the reception given to our proposals. The proposals that I announced today are based on our manifesto, which was overwhelmingly endorsed by the British people—not least because of its law and order measures.
The right hon. Gentleman asked several questions, and I shall do my best to answer them. He made some ridiculous claims about the provisions of section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 relating to repeat burglars. He implied that his Administration were committed to bringing that section into force by October 1999. They did nothing of the kind—indeed, the commitment went backwards.
In April 1996, in the White Paper "Protecting the Public", the Government gave, as "an example" of how their plans might be achieved,
taking account of … the need to provide additional prison places and the resource implications"—
exactly what I said—that the proposals for minimum sentences for domestic burglars might be introduced "in October 1999". However, those provisions would not have had any effect until 2001.
By March 1997, the Government's commitment had been reduced even more. I have the official Home Office press statement that was issued when the Crime (Sentences) Bill received Royal Assent on 21 March 1997. It states:
Notes for editors. None of the provisions of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 have immediate effect. No dates have yet been set for implementation.

The right hon. Gentleman skips about with a series of figures, trying to suggest that the public's understanding of the record of the previous Administration from 1979 regarding the doubling of crime and the great increase in victimisation is somehow wrong. He reminded me of Pol Pot—trying to set year zero at the date that suited him. I shall be delighted to publish all the figures to which the right hon. Gentleman referred—many are already in the Library, and others I published when I was in opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the OECD report. That report shows that, of 16 western countries, England and Wales had the largest increase in crime between 1987 and 1994. I shall put that report in the Library. There can be no gainsaying the survey published today that shows that the people of England and Wales are more likely to be the victims of burglary, robbery, assault, theft from cars and theft of cars than those in any of the other 11 countries mentioned.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman referred to delays. I am very glad that he approves of our plans to reduce delays in courts. However, he did not acknowledge—and he should—that, despite the fact that the number of people convicted by the courts has fallen by a third in the past 18 years, thanks to the incompetence of the previous Administration, delays have worsened by five weeks. It took nine weeks to get a case to court in 1984, and it now takes 14 weeks. That is scandalous.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Many of us are appalled by the overcrowding in prisons, and are therefore attracted by the arguments of the Offenders Tag Association. Against the background of the very constructive letter written to me on this subject by the Minister responsible for prisons, will my right hon. Friend comment on the view that, in Manchester, Reading and Norfolk, probation service care is received only spasmodically and surreptitiously, and that through-care is important? What is the Government's policy in relation to tagging in the field of back-end release—that is, curtailing the sentences of first-time offenders under the supervision of the night curfew?

Mr. Straw: We have no proposals on my hon. Friend's last point at present, but we are certainly ready to consider proposals.
My hon. Friend asks about the practice of tagging. The analysis of the experiments in the three pilot areas shows that they are 80 per cent. successful and, whatever original concerns there may have been about tagging, there is no question—I am happy to say this—but that they have proved more successful than many expected and can make community punishments much tougher and more effective.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Home Secretary realise that we will welcome measures to reduce the delay in court procedures and to strengthen community sentences, including tagging where that can be part of an effective programme for the offender concerned? But how many additional prison places will be required for the sentencing proposals to which the right hon. Gentleman has committed himself, and do the figures that he will produce assume that one in five criminals will be deterred by the existence of mandatory sentences,


given that there is no objective basis for that assumption which has been made by the Home Office since the time of the previous Government?
Is the right hon. Gentleman now beginning to regret joining in the hue and cry for longer prison sentences, which was led by the previous Home Secretary, which was based on no commitment of resources? There were no prison places for all these people and were the 20 new prisons to be built, that would be at the expense of the policing and crime prevention which saves victims from suffering crimes in the first place.

Mr. Straw: The detailed answers to the questions which the right hon. Gentleman asks were given in "The Audit of the Prison Service" and its annexe published last Friday by me and placed in the Library of the House. It contains detailed analysis of the methodology used by the research and statistics section of the Home Office to make its assessment of the rise in the prison population. I speak from memory, but I do not think that he will find included in that the rather arbitrary assumption—he is quite right—that one in five prisoners would somehow be deterred by some of the provisions.
The effects during the next few years of the provisions that I have announced to implement sections 2 and 3 of the Crime (Sentences) Act are limited, because those offenders are likely to expect custodial sentences in any event. The issue is how long those sentences should be and, in respect of serious violent and sexual offenders, if they are released from their life sentence whether they should be subject to life licence.
The right hon. Gentleman makes the general point about the hue and cry in favour of longer prison sentences. I and my party are in favour of the appropriate sentence. We disagreed about this in opposition and we may still disagree, but it is fair and appropriate that if sexual and violent offenders offend a second time, they should be subject to an automatic life sentence, bearing in mind the fact that the tariff will be set by the trial judge and the release date by the Parole Board. For traffickers in class A drugs, a seven-year minimum sentence is, in normal circumstances, appropriate.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement and I assure him that Labour Members, and certainly the British people, will receive it with acclamation. Having said that, let me be more specific in my question. Will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that his measures to tackle disorder and anti-social crime, especially in industrial areas, will be fairly specific? Can he assure me that his measures will, in the main, resolve most of the torment and misery that have been inflicted on our neighbourhood communities by such crime?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says. Like him, I believe that the proposals will be widely welcomed throughout the country. While I was making my statement, there was muttering from the Opposition Benches to the effect that all the proposals had been invented by the Conservative party when in government. I wish that they had. Had the Conservative Government accepted our proposals on, for example, youth justice and disorder instead of dismissing them as

irrelevant and unnecessary, persistent young offenders would now be dealt with and the misery that our voters suffer in estate after estate would have been ended.
The proposals that we will bring forward in the crime and disorder Bill, in respect of both youth justice and disorder, will be specific, and I am in no doubt that, once they have been brought into force, they will help to relieve the terrible burden that many of our communities now suffer as a result of such disorder.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that the fall in crime over four consecutive years is real? If so, will he congratulate the former Home Secretary? If not, will he tell the House what alternative measures he proposes to adopt? I listened carefully to him. Will he confirm that he does not intend to implement our "honesty in sentencing" proposals? If that is so, what will be the effect on the prison population? Will there be a decrease?
Will the Home Secretary give the British people an assurance that the question of resources will not prevent the Government from keeping in prison those whom the courts judge deserve a custodial sentence, regardless of the fact that that may lead to an increase in the numbers in prison? Will he make sure that there is an adequate prison building programme under the private finance initiative to deal with that increase?

Mr. Straw: I am not sure why the right hon. Lady invites me to congratulate her right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on any issue, given that such words of approbation never passed her lips.
I made it clear when the crime figures were published that I was pleased that recorded crime was going down rather than up. However, the previous Government must be judged on their overall record. Year zero was not 1992: it was 1979. The facts are reflected in the defeat that the Conservatives suffered at the election, not least as a result of their complacency on law and order. The public did not believe the complacent words that they heard from Ministers, because they collided with their own, very different, experience.
The right hon. Lady is right that we are not implementing those sections embedded in the Crime (Sentences) Act that deal with the Conservatives' "honesty in sentencing" proposals. I made that clear when we were in opposition. She asked me about the effect on prison numbers. The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), sitting two along from her, made it clear, as did the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, that the "honesty in sentencing" proposals were supposed to have a neutral effect on the prison population. They said that in their White Paper, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it on Second Reading. Those proposals were so immensely complicated that they had to be changed again and again.
I share the view of the Lord Chief Justice. I made it clear two years ago that the public and victims should be much clearer about the effect of a sentence. That can be done in a much simpler way under the proposals that I have announced.
The right hon. Lady said time and again when she was in government that any public service must be paid for. The Government stand ready to meet the increased


demand on prison places. For that reason, I announced last Friday additional spending on the prison population of £43 million, and I have already agreed plans to build two further new prisons, which were in train under the previous Administration.

Ann Keen: May I first comment on what the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Dr. Mawhinney) said? My colleagues were quiet while we were listening to the Home Secretary. We do not engage in anti-social behaviour: we are mature Members of Parliament.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the initiative to help young people who leave prison to enter the jobs market, which is crucial to crime prevention. Does the survey refer to confidence in the British police?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. Indeed, the survey refers to confidence in the British police. Although confidence in the criminal justice system has fallen, confidence in the police remains high, both historically and by international standards.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The House will welcome any effective steps that the Home Secretary takes to reduce the delay in matters coming to trial. Until we see the right hon. Gentleman's response to the Narey report, it will be difficult for us to judge how effective his proposals are likely to be. Does he accept, however, that he could take at least two steps? First, he could appoint more full-time or part-time stipendiary magistrates. Secondly—this was canvassed in the Narey inquiry—he could contemplate a reduction in the number and categories of cases that are tried before a jury in the Crown court.
May I revert to the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)? Does the Home Secretary accept that there will be widespread disappointment about his departure from the proposition that sentences should mean what they say? That is what is meant by the phrase "honesty in sentencing". Is the right hon. Gentleman's objection to that policy one of principle, or is it based on his fear that it will lead to an increase in the prison population for which there is no Treasury cover?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful for what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said about our proposals in respect of delay. He made two suggestions. Increased use of stipendiary magistrates—which was indeed canvassed in the Narey inquiry—is principally a matter for the Lord Chancellor, but we are considering it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also suggested a reduction in the number and categorisation of cases. That, too, is a sensible proposal, to which we are giving further thought.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong to suggest that I had said that we were not proceeding with proposals to make sentences mean what they say. One of our objections to the Conservatives' version of honesty in sentencing is that we would have ended up with very confused sentencing. The Conservatives sought to introduce a new system in which two years would mean two years, but—as the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) could tell the House at length—

our consideration in Committee established that the reality would be nothing like that. There would be discounts for this, and premiums for that.
It would be a waste of time and effort to introduce such a system; it would be far better to build on the existing system—I believe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman played a part in its introduction when producing the Criminal Justice Act 1991—and say, by way of practice direction, that the courts should spell out exactly what a sentence means. That is what we intend to do.

Mr. Keith Vaz: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on his excellent statement. His proposals will be warmly welcomed by the electorate, especially on housing estates that suffer greatly from crime—such as the one in Leicester that he visited recently.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important not just to have more effectiveness and consistency in sentencing, but to monitor that effectiveness and consistency? It is no longer good enough merely to have guidelines; we need to ensure that those guidelines are followed properly.

Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend and thank him for what he has said. As a great deal of evidence from the Home Office and the Prison Reform Trust showed recently, considerable and rather inexplicable data show substantial inconsistency between courts in respect of similar offences and offenders. That is something which the whole system—including the Home Office—needs to address.

Mr. David Maclean: I assure the Home Secretary that I would not dream of comparing him to Pol Pot. Following his performance this afternoon, it would be infinitely more appropriate to compare him to St. Paul on the way to Damascus.
I warmly welcome the bulk of the policies that the Home Secretary has announced and his apparent conversion to policies that my colleagues and I have espoused in the Home Office during the past three years. He said, however, that he was going to implement the important Narey report. Can he tell us whether there are any significant threads in this seamless robe that he intends to unravel—any proposals that he intends not to implement?

Mr. Straw: As far as I know, we are implementing nearly all the Narey report, consistent with what I told the House when the report came before us in February. There is already a detailed answer in the Vote Office—I would detain the House for probably half an hour if I read it out—which gives further information about each recommendation, and I think that it will have the right hon. Gentleman's approval.

Ms Christine Russell: As one who has been a magistrate for the past 17 years, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the measures that he has outlined. I must say that I listened with amazement to what the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Dr. Mawhinney) had to say. From my 17 years personal experience of such service, particularly in youth courts, I


know that the current system is costly and not very effective. More than anything else it is slow. It is not at all unknown for a young offender who has been arrested at Christmas not to arrive in court until the summer holidays. Exactly what measures does my right hon. Friend have in mind for speeding up the system in the youth courts?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. As she knows, the policies that I have announced were partly informed by an important conference that was held in Chester, in her constituency, last August. At that conference, she and many other colleagues brought to my attention many of the serious defects in the current system of youth justice as it operated under the previous Administration.
Our crime and disorder Bill will contain a series of proposals to speed up the way in which the youth justice and adult justice systems operate. It will do that by setting much clearer and enforceable time limits on the various stages, by implementing the proposals in the Narey report and, for example, in respect of persistent young offenders, by including a definition of such offenders and by ensuring that, having been identified, they are fast-tracked through the courts.
One specific change that we shall make will be to reverse the judgment in R. v. Khan, which has the perverse effect of requiring courts to delay proceedings in respect of a case that is ready first in time until all the other cases are ready. That is one of the reasons for the ludicrous situation that the worse the crimes an offender commits and the more often they are committed, the longer it takes to get him or her to court.

Mr. Humfrey Malins: The Home Secretary has rightly said that he is concerned about delays, which are a big problem in our courts. I should like to make four, I hope helpful, suggestions from the point of view of somebody at the sharp end. The Home Secretary will know that I have more criminal judicial experience as a stipendiary and as a recorder than many others.
There are three problems at magistrates court level. The first is the ability of defendants to get more and more adjournments without good reason. The second is the delay involved as a result of introducing the right to advance information and the Crown Prosecution Service not producing it for weeks. The third is that after the mode of trial is determined, the current requirement by the Crown Prosecution Service is for a gap of six weeks before it serves papers. Those three matters need to be looked at.
Finally, the Home Secretary knows, as we all know, that it is ludicrous that some petty theft and petty assault cases are currently going to the Crown court at defendants' election at a cost of £8,000 a day. That clogs up the Crown court system immensely. In addition to what I have said, there is a powerful argument for restricting the right to a Crown court trial and, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, for the appointment of many more metropolitan "stipes". There is plenty of research material in the Lord Chancellor's Department, with which

I hope the Home Secretary will liaise carefully, to show that "stipes" get through business very quickly. I hope that those suggestions are slightly helpful.

Mr. Straw: They are indeed, and I shall deal briefly with each of them. There has been a substantial increase in the number and average length of adjournments. I think that they have been encouraged by perverse incentives in the legal aid system. It is also noteworthy that stipendiaries deal more briskly with requests for adjournments than some lay magistrates, and I am sure that matter will be taken on board by the Lord Chancellor's Department.
The hon. Gentleman is right about advance disclosure. In my judgment, those rules, too, have sometimes been abused by legally aided solicitors who try to milk the system. There are inefficiencies in the mode of trial system, including some by the Crown Prosecution Service. They are being addressed by the review which my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has established and which is being conducted by Sir lain Glidewell.
The hon. Gentleman invited me to agree to one of the proposals of the Narey report that was not accepted at the time either by the previous Government or by my party—a proposal for a restriction on the right to elect for trial. My own view, which was also the previous Government's view, was that we should wait to see how the implementation of section 49 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, on plea before venue, worked out before revisiting that matter. Two thirds of the transfers of cases from magistrates courts to Crown courts are made not by election but by decision made by magistrates before election.

Dr. George Turner: May I assure my right hon. Friend that his statement will receive a warm welcome in my constituency, especially in King's Lynn? The remarks made to me since my election lead me to believe that that applies in particular to the clarity that my right hon. Friend brings to his intention to deliver on our promises to tackle the problems of disorder and anti-social behaviour. Can he reassure the House that in doing that, he will take account of the real difficulty in bringing prosecutions and other actions in that connection, because of the major problems involved in persuading witnesses to give evidence when they can so readily be threatened by those among whom they live?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. From what he has told me, I know about the serious problems that exist even in a relatively peaceful town such as King's Lynn. I know that his constituents have encountered those problems and are looking forward to the changes that I have announced today.
Witness intimidation is serious and is getting worse. We shall set up a review to consider changes in the law and in practice to protect witnesses better. My hon. Friend has drawn our attention to a major problem, which we all have to tackle carefully.

Mr. Bob Russell: Looking at Government policies as a whole, what would the Home Secretary consider a measure of success in being tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime? Would it be fewer people in prison or more people in prison? If more, how many new prisons does the right hon. Gentleman expect to be required for his millennium project?
As for youth sentencing, does the Home Secretary intend to provide more boot camps such as the one in Colchester, bearing in mind the fact that the average cost per inmate per year is £31,500, as opposed to £17,500 in a typical institution? My question is: is it money or is it sentencing that the right hon. Gentleman is after?

Hon. Members: Guilty or not guilty?

Mr. Straw: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, I have to tell him that I do not see issues of law and order in quite such an eccentric way. My purpose, as I told the House earlier, is to secure better safety for the public. It is on that outcome that we shall be judged. The number of people who end up in prison is a function of how many commit crimes and how many are caught, and of entirely independent decisions made by magistrates and judges. I am not arguing with those decisions. I should like a world in which fewer people appeared before the courts who needed to be sent to prison—and I should like to be judged on that, too.
The hon. Gentleman asked for figures. Future projections of the prison population can be found in "The Audit of the Prison Service", which I laid before the House last Friday. I should be happy to send him an autographed copy, if that would assist his reading.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me about the young offenders camp, the military prison at Colchester. As we made clear at the first Question Time that I took, we have accepted the idea that the experiment ought to run for a year. It would be absurd to abandon it halfway through, and would waste money without producing any information. We shall assess it after it has run for a year.

Caroline Flint: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Having in the past few weeks spent an evening on patrol with officers from the Edlington police in Don Valley, I am sure that they will welcome what he has said about consistent sentencing policy and stiff penalties for those who commit second offences of a violent or sexual nature.
What emerged from that evening was the fear among my constituents of people who have stolen from their homes, yet who then come out into the streets and walk around bold as brass, as if they had got away with it. The survey clearly shows a lack of confidence in measures such as community safety orders and other community punishments. In moving towards community punishments, which have a vital role, how can we ensure that victims feel confident that they would be best served if such punishments were imposed?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her remarks. The purpose of community safety orders is to provide swift and effective ways of securing injunctions against those who commit persistent disorder and the kind of intimidation that she describes, who are not dealt with effectively by magistrates or Crown courts at the moment. The establishment of community safety orders, with more intensive policing of the kind she has described and other provisions of the kind I have announced this afternoon—including, for example, parental responsibility orders, which may be attached to community safety orders—should enable law-abiding people and the police to regain

control of their areas. Those people who try to wreck the peace and quiet of those areas will be put where they belong if they continue to do so—in prison.

Mr. Damian Green: While joining my right hon. and hon. Friends in welcoming the vast tracts of the Home Secretary's statement which build on the policies implemented by the previous Government, may I urge him a few more feet down the right road? When will he finish his review on mandatory minimum sentences? Will he implement mandatory minimum sentences for repeat burglars? Is he aware that, if he cannot give a completion date for the review, many will regard his tough talk—regrettably—as a mere sham?

Mr. Straw: The position that I have announced today is the same as that announced by the previous Government in their White Paper, presented to the House in April 1996, which said:
The Government's objective is to implement the various proposals, taking account of the Parliamentary timetable, the need to provide additional prison places and the resource implications.
It is a question not of a review, but of whether it is appropriate to take action, bearing in mind those considerations.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend realise that, as the fear of crime and of anti-social behaviour is, regrettably, one of the worst problems in this country in the 1990s, his statement will be very much welcomed? He also knows that a large proportion of crime is drug related. How can we find out the true percentage of crimes which are drug related? What steps can we take to tackle the root causes and stop the wide misuse of drugs, which is growing throughout the country?

Mr. Straw: Drugs lie behind a large amount of crime—not just drug crime specifically, but burglary and theft. The Home Office has conducted a study to try to ascertain the precise relationship between drug and alcohol abuse and those who commit crimes. The preliminary results are alarming and will be published in due course. We are taking other active steps to strengthen the arrangements which the previous Government commendably set in place to improve co-ordination in the fight against crime. A UK drug director will shortly be appointed and, as I have announced this afternoon, we intend that a drug treatment and testing order should be available to the courts as a community punishment to take account and make use of mandatory drug testing.

Mr. Nigel Evans: May I congratulate the Home Secretary on many of his familiar proposals? Could he say more about the removal of passports from young offenders? There can be few things more distressing to victims of crime and others than to read in a newspaper that a young thug or young offender on probation has been taken on safari to Africa or a cruise in Egypt. Taking away his passport would stop such schemes. Will he look also at domestic probation "punishments" with particular reference to an incident in which a lad was taken to Butlin's for two weeks with a probation officer—during which time the young offender was stealing from other residents' chalets?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his approbation of my proposals, which are familiar because


we made them before the election. The proposals were voted for. It is also familiar that our proposals for youth justice and disorder were dismissed by the Conservative party as unnecessary at the time. I am glad that it has made a Damascene conversion.
As for passports, at the moment, those who are subject to community supervision are not supposed to go abroad except in "exceptional and compassionate circumstances", but I have discovered that there are no arrangements for enforcing that. That is why I have asked for urgent work to be put in hand to ensure that when people are subject to such punishments, they literally cannot go abroad without breaking many other laws.
I entirely share the hon. Member's view about the inappropriateness of sending those who are subject not only to treatment but to punishment on what appears to be a pleasure holiday. Nothing has damaged confidence in community punishments more than that and I want an end to it.

Gillian Merron: I welcome the statement and I know that it will be very much welcomed by my constituents, whom it will show the true determination to act which they believe is long overdue. My experience is that fear of crime is one of the most insidious features of our current daily lives. Many people are kept prisoners in their homes because of it. It is unacceptable that my constituents have to approach me with their fears of constant harassment in their homes, rubbish thrown over the back yard, verbal abuse, shopping bags snatched and, most recently, an elderly gentleman being knocked to the ground and his glasses trodden on.
Does my right hon. Friend feel that we need a comprehensive approach to the conditions in which crime breeds, in an attempt to tackle crime? Is it a comprehensive approach that we need?

Mr. Straw: Yes, it is. My hon. Friend's description of the problems that some of her constituents face underlines the need for a strategy of zero tolerance that tackles disorder as well as crime. A recent Home Office survey showed that, in areas of instability of the sort she described, there is not only more disorder, but a four times greater chance of people being the victims of violent crime. Disorder leads to crime. Both have to be tackled.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: While I welcome much of the Home Secretary's statement—leaving aside his Pauline conversion, which I do not want to go into—to pick up on what has just been said, there appears to be ample evidence that the seeds of delinquency are sown in early childhood. A number of surveys, particularly in the United States, have shown that provision targeted towards those most at risk at a very young age produces substantial knock-on effects 10 years down the road.
The last person to take an interest was the then right hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon when he was Home Secretary, but because that subject does not necessarily enjoy immediate electoral appeal, it is often bypassed. I have always been convinced that a twin-track approach on both those problems will be necessary if the causes of crime are to be tackled. I urge the Home Secretary to consider that and, in particular, whether any

money can be made available through a Home Office budget as well as through other services to deal with that issue.

Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is entirely right and makes some important remarks. The evidence from the headstart programme analysis in America shows that effective nursery education is better at deterring offending behaviour later in the teenage years than anything else. That is one reason why we are committed to expanding nursery education. I have no doubt about that. He is also right to say that it is inevitable, perhaps, that Governments of both persuasions have had to go for more short-term solutions because there is a problem of juvenile crime there now that we have to deal with, but I accept what he says.
As for money, that would fall to the Department of Education and Employment and I regret to tell him that, since we are following the previous Administration's public expenditure survey control levels for the next two years, there is no money available for that project.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I think that it was the chief constable of Cornwall who said, "If you cure the drug problem, you can halve your crime problem." I am interested in the introduction of the seven-year sentence, but it is the drug traffickers who worry me. Drug dealers will certainly always take the chance of seven years, and the traffickers, who will put up the price, will make them do it even more. I am worried about the trafficking side in the light of my right hon. Friend's statement. Has he anything to say about that?

Mr. Straw: Drug traffickers are among the most evil people in our society. As I have seen as Home Secretary in the past three months, their ruthless ability to break every law in the land, intimidate and commit acts of violence in pursuit of their trade has no limits. It is appalling and such people need the most severe punishment. I can reassure my hon. Friend that the seven-year sentence that I announced today, which will be implemented later this year, is a minimum. The maximum for drug trafficking is, I believe, life.

Mr. Norman Baker: Will the Home Secretary go slightly further than he did in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) in respect of prison places? I ask not least because Lewes prison is in my constituency. I hope that, in the new spirit of co-operation between our parties, he will be able to respond positively. How many new prison places will be required as a consequence of his statement this afternoon? Is the £43 million to deal with existing overcrowding or is it intended also to cover the consequences of the statement?
It is absolutely right that criminals who need to be locked up to protect the public should be in prison, but what steps is the Home Secretary taking to ensure that those who should not be in prison—fine defaulters, for example—are released into the community, providing space for those who should be there?

Mr. Straw: The £43 million that I announced last Friday is to deal with existing overcrowding. We hope that the proposals that I have announced today will come


into force quickly, but that will not happen in the next few months, which is the time that that money is intended to cover.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the effect of my proposals on prison places. All the detail is in "The Audit of Prison Service Resources", which was published last Friday. I thought it right to publish it well in advance of this statement so that right hon. and hon. Members would have time to study it beforehand. From recollection, the prison population is estimated to rise to about 68,000—an extra 6,000 places—by early 1999. I should be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the audit.
The previous Government did a great deal of effective work in reducing the number of fine defaulters who were detained in prison, and we supported them in that. In any one day, there are now usually fewer than 100 prisoners who are there for fine default. I should like to put in place other measures for fine defaulters that we supported in the previous Parliament, but it must also be acknowledged that if people carry on defaulting, they will have to be sent to prison, because there is no ultimate alternative.

Mr. Mark Todd: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Obviously, justice hinges on catching criminals and convicting them, and a critical issue, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner) said, is that of obtaining witnesses and ensuring that they feel secure in giving evidence.
To do that, we must ensure that court facilities are appropriate, so that, for example, witnesses can be separated from offenders and their friends; that is a problem in Derby, and I should welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on it. Local justice is also important. Having to travel significant distances to court at inconvenient times of day is a disincentive to witnesses.
A critical issue in Derbyshire is the inequity of resources between it and the neighbouring constabularies. In Derbyshire, 20 per cent. more people have to be covered by a typical officer than in neighbouring counties.

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the problem of witness intimidation. All Crown courts are now covered by witness services, but many magistrates courts are not. Some magistrates courts are, however, taking steps properly to separate prosecution from defence witnesses. For example, at Redditch there is a locally funded witness service that has been doing effective work. I hope that that example can be followed elsewhere.
The police grant is a new, mystical science which produces winners and losers. It is probably a better way of allocating resources than the system that went before, but, since resources are limited and will remain so under this Administration, for every winner under the police grant system there will be some losers, and I cannot but apologise for that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. We must now bring the statement to a close.

Points of Order

Mr. Humfrey Malins: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It relates to the Home Office and the Home Secretary. Have you had any application from a Home Office Minister to make a statement to the House about the crisis that could arise if hundreds of Somalis arrive by Eurostar at Waterloo claiming asylum? Many of them are bogus and have come from safe third countries. I understand that all are entitled to full benefits. They may continue arriving throughout the summer recess. Has any Minister suggested that the Government propose to take any action?

Madam Speaker: I have not been informed that a Home Office Minister, or any Minister, seeks to make a statement on that matter today.

Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Following my question yesterday, I have taken advice. Has the Minister of Transport asked you to allow him to come to the Dispatch Box to correct an inaccuracy at Question Time yesterday? I pointed out to him that unilateral action to ban bull bars would be illegal under European Union law. The Minister replied that it would not. It has since come to my attention that that is inaccurate, and that such action would be illegal under EU law. The Minister has, albeit inadvertently, misled the House. He should come to the Dispatch Box immediately to correct the inaccuracy.

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Lady knows, I am not responsible for comments that Ministers make or policy commitments that they give. The hon. Lady is making not a point of order but a challenge to the Minister of Transport. She must find means other than points of order by which to pursue the matter with the Minister. Perhaps those on the Government Front Bench will make the Minister of Transport aware of the hon. Lady's comments today.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I do not usually take further points of order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is interested in bull bars, but I will not allow a debate on them. I have answered the hon. Lady's point of order, which was reasonable.

Mr. Nigel Evans: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Has the Secretary of State for Wales said that he would like to come to the House to make a statement, following the announcement by Roy Hughes yesterday that he was to be elevated to the House of Lords, and the article in the Western Mail which states that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Sir R. Powell) has repeated the allegation that he was offered a peerage to vacate his seat to make way for one of the Prime Minister's loyal supporters? That statement was then


refuted by the Secretary of State for Wales. Both of them cannot be telling the truth. Has the Secretary of State asked to come to the Dispatch Box to clarify the situation?

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): rose—

Madam Speaker: Is the Minister seeking to make a further point of order before I respond?

Mr. Hain: Yes. May I suggest that this is yet another bogus and false point of order from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans).

Madam Speaker: I have not been told that a Minister seeks to make a statement, but it seems to me that I ought to make a statement and say that it is almost bucket and spade time for the House.

Companies (Political Funds)

Mr. Roger Godsiff: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require ballots of shareholders of companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 in respect of proposed donations for political purposes; to define political purposes; to require political funds to be established for the payment of such donations; to specify how such political funds will be funded and the qualifications for receipt of donations; and for connected purposes.
Before we move on to our buckets and spades, I should like to move this motion.
The purpose of the Bill is to correct an anomaly in company law that has existed for far too long. The Bill contains four main provisions. First, it requires publicly quoted companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 to establish, after approval has been sought by a ballot of shareholders, separate political funds, should that company wish to make donations for political purposes.
Secondly, the Bill clearly defines political purposes as payments to any political party or any organisation that engages in promoting or campaigning for political parties. Thirdly, it defines a percentage of dividends payable to shareholders that can be put into a company political fund. Most important, it provides the facility for those shareholders who object to payment of part of their dividend into the company political fund to have the right not to contribute, and to receive the full value of their dividend payment.
Under the Companies Act 1985, directors must state in their annual report contributions of more than £200 made for political purposes. The report, together with the company's accounts, is laid before the shareholders at the annual meeting, and approved or rejected in its totality. If, however, any shareholder or group of shareholders wish to object to payments made by the company for political purposes, they have no option but to vote against the resolution to approve the report and accounts of the company.
Shareholders are therefore placed in an extremely difficult position should they disapprove of any payments made for political purposes by that company. Were they to reject the director's report and accounts, that would amount to a rejection of the commercial management of the company. If that company were listed, such action would result in a catastrophic fall in the company's share price, and could have serious commercial repercussions.
No shareholder who invests his money in a company for commercial reasons would wish to precipitate such a situation. Under current law, the shareholder would have little alternative but to act in that way if he profoundly disagreed with donations made by the company for political purposes.
Under current law, a dissatisfied shareholder could move a resolution at the company's annual meeting to censure the board for making any political donation. Such a course of action is costly and administratively difficult. For example, the resolution would have to be circulated to all shareholders, and the company could require the proposers of it to pay for the cost of circulating it. For that and other administrative reasons, shareholder resolutions are seldom submitted at annual meetings.
The purpose of the Bill is to rectify that anomaly by obliging companies that wish to make donations for political purposes to establish a political fund that is entirely separate from the commercial activities and accounts of the company. Shareholders will know how much of each dividend is paid into the company's political fund and what payments are made from the fund, and, if they wished, they would have the right to opt out from contributing part of their dividend payments to such a fund.
The central issue behind the Bill is the extension of shareholder democracy. After the privatisations and building society flotations, there are now between 16 million and 18 million individual shareholders in the United Kingdom. Not only are they shareholders: they are stakeholders in our economy. Those shareholders have the right to a say about how their money is spent if it is spent for purposes other than those for which it was invested, and spent on causes to which they may be deeply opposed.
Without express separate shareholder approval, boards of directors should not spend shareholders' moneys on non-commercial purposes. As I said, the Bill is about the extension of shareholder democracy. It is needed because the current situation is wholly inadequate as the means of protecting shareholders' rights.
The question of political donations has moved high up the political agenda. I welcome the fact that the Government are committed to introducing a policy of transparency, and not before time. They are committed to dealing with donations from foreign sources. I commend the new leader of the Conservative party for announcing that his party will no longer accept foreign donations, such as those made by Mr. Asil Nadir.
It is time that publicly quoted companies operated according to clearly defined criteria which uphold the rights of their shareholders. Since 1967, companies have been obliged to disclose in their annual reports any gifts of moneys above £200 for political purposes. There has been no obligation on companies, however, to seek the prior approval of shareholders for such donations.
Between 1980 and 1991, 66 of the largest companies in the United Kingdom made political donations which totalled £13.6 million. I make no comment on the fact that 85 industrialists connected with those 66 companies received peerages or knighthoods during the same period.
I welcome the fact that a number of companies have of late decided to end their practice of making political donations. The fact remains, however, that, according to a limited survey of the top 300 United Kingdom companies, in 1995–96 more than £1.5 million was paid out by such companies for political purposes. The vast majority of those moneys were paid away with little or no regard to the wishes of individual shareholders.
My Bill would enhance the rights of millions of shareholders by allowing them to determine whether the companies in which they invest their money should be allowed to use part of their profits to engage in political activities. It would not deny any company the right to make a political donation, providing it has established a political fund with the approval of its shareholders. The Bill will enhance shareholder democracy, and as such I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Roger Godsiff, Mr. Charles Clarke, Mr. Harry Cohen, Caroline Flint, Mr. Andrew Mackinlay, Mr. Marsha Singh, Mr. Denis MacShane, Mr. Phil Woolas, Ms Margaret Moran, Mr. Alan Keen.

COMPANIES (POLITICAL FUNDS)

Mr. Roger Godsiff accordingly presented a Bill to require ballots of shareholders of companies incorporated under the Companies Act 1985 in respect of proposed donations for political purposes; to define political purposes; to require political funds to be established for the payment of such donations; to specify how such political funds will be funded and the qualifications for receipt of donations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 November, and to be printed [Bill 60].

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill [Money] (No. 2)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Resolution of the House of 22nd May 1997 relating to Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill [Money] shall have effect as if—

(1) in paragraph (1), the words 'an Order in Council under' were omitted,
(2) in paragraph (2), for the words 'the Secretary of State' there were substituted the words 'a Minister of the Crown', and
(3) in paragraph (2)(b), the words 'the establishment of' were omitted.—[Mr. Jon Owen Jones.]

Mr. Douglas Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—or rather, two points of order. The motion refers to a resolution of the house of 22 May 1997; we are being asked, in effect, to amend it. I have been to the Vote Office and asked for a copy of that previous resolution, and I have in my hand the only copy in its possession. In other words, any other hon. Member who goes there for a copy will be referred to me, which is hard luck. I put it to you that when we are asked to look at former resolutions, the Government should ensure an adequate supply of the relevant documents in the Vote Office.
My second and different point relates to the meaning to be attached to the phrase:
a Minister of the Crown".
I assume that it embraces all Secretaries of State, Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries, but I would appreciate your guidance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): On the first point, the resolution should have appeared in Hansard and is thus freely available to all right hon. and hon. Members. The second point is one for debate, not for the Chair. We now have some time—admittedly limited—to debate the motion.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be tiresome, but the meaning of a phrase is a matter not for Ministers but for the Chair—this is a House document. I am only asking what "Minister of the Crown" means.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are debating a Government motion, so the Chair should not rule on it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may have a chance to catch my eye during the debate if he wants to expand on his point.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I should like to ask a few questions about the motion because, although it is a money resolution, it deals with certain aspects of the Bill which, because of the previous timetable motion, were not discussed, and certain significant points must be clarified at this stage. It seems slightly odd, although I am told that it is the way in which the House proceeds, that we are dealing with amendments that are consequential upon amendments that we shall not be discussing, if we get

there, until the end of our debates on the Lords amendments. It is, however, relevant to raise these questions now.
The first question relates to the matter raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in his point of order, which is the definition of:
a Minister of the Crown".
If I read the amendments right, a Minister of the Crown will now be entitled to spend money, which previously had been the purview of the Secretary of State. It is for the consideration of the House as to which Ministers will be entitled to spend money on matters such as those set out in the resolution:
(a) in connection with the referendum held by virtue of the Act, or
(b) in the preparation of a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly.
I presume that not every Minister in the Government would be entitled to spend public money and then claim that it somehow fitted under one of those two heads; I should be grateful if we could be told who those Ministers will be.
Are there any limits to how much those Ministers might be able to spend under the provision? Can any Minister of the Crown issue, for example, expenditure certificates in connection with the forthcoming referendums? Who, at the end of the day, judges whether the expenditure is actually in connection with the provided purposes? Who is the arbiter of that expenditure and how will the system work? When expenditure was carried out by Secretaries of State, it obviously related to the Scottish Office or the Welsh Office and that was not a problem; but if it is spread much wider, we need to know who the Ministers are and what the limitations are.
Secondly, the deletion of the words "the establishment of', is another of the consequential amendments. I have read the explanation for that action given in another place and I understand that it is to allow for certain preparations that might not be strictly connected with the establishment of a Parliament building or a place for the Assembly, or for expenditure on matters such as preparing for the tax-varying powers of the Scottish Parliament. I heard what was said in the other place, and we all appreciate that some expenditure might go a little wider, but we need to know how wide. We are told that it is likely to be expenditure incurred by the Inland Revenue or the Department of Social Security, but within what time scale are they to be allowed to make that expenditure? What sort of sums are envisaged—large or small?
If the tax-varying powers are wider than they appear to be on the face of the Scottish White Paper, what control will there be over the expenditure? If other potential tax-raising powers are hidden within the words of the White Paper, can studies into those be contracted, which would be paid for under this provision of the money resolution? What limits would there be to that sort of work? Those are points on which we need to have information before the House can be satisfied that the matter has been fully thought through.
Finally, there is the question of the words that are not subject to the amendments, but which are within the resolution and closely tied to the amendments—the words, "provided by Parliament". What the money resolution says is that the expenditure, which can now be


incurred by any Minister of the Crown in connection with a widely drawn preparation for a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly, will be provided for by Parliament. What does that mean? Will the money come from the central Exchequer? Will it come from the Scottish and the Welsh blocks? If from the Scottish and Welsh blocks, will the blocks be as they are now, or will they be supplemented to pay for the expenditure?
What new calculations have the Government made of the preparation costs? In respect of the Scottish Parliament, we have had start-up figures of between £10 million and £14 million, but that was in the days before the powers were expanded as they have been in the money resolution. Presumably, those figures will now be greater. We should be told what estimate the Government make of the extra costs of preparing for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly under the broader criteria.
We need assurances, not only about what the costs will be, but especially that none of the expenditure will be paid for by United Kingdom taxpayers. If the expenditure has to be incurred—the House knows that I would disagree with that suggestion—it should be paid for by people in Wales and in Scotland, and I should like a categorical assurance on that point.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I believe that it is reasonable to take the time of the House to ask a question about borrowing powers. I should have thought that any Parliament that calls itself a Parliament must be entitled to borrowing powers, and there are no limits, beyond those of what is politically acceptable, to the borrowing powers of the United Kingdom Government.
By contrast, there are very precise limits to the permissible borrowing of local authorities. Before their borrowing is included in calculations of the public sector borrowing requirement, it is ultimately controlled by the Treasury. It is inconceivable that similar restraints will not be imposed on a Scottish Parliament as, whether it has taxing powers or not, nearly all its revenue will come from Westminster, having been calculated as a share of the UK Government's revenue. Any borrowing that it is permitted will be part of the PSBR and controlled accordingly.
Is that a correct understanding of the position? Some people have great expectations of a Parliament in Edinburgh that has borrowing powers. Might that be clarified?

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I should like to follow the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I draw the Minister's attention to three points and seek his clarification on them.
The first point relates to the requirement for an Order in Council under the Act. That is the first tiret. As I understand the existing money resolution, before an expenditure is authorised to be covered under the money resolution, the money must be authorised under the Act and approved by an Order in Council. In other words, the Order in Council was a condition precedent of the money being paid.
We are deleting that. In other words, I would suggest to the House, we are loosening the control that the House has of the money that is covered by the money resolution. In other words, expenditure can be incurred under the Act which is not covered by an Order in Council, and that is a wider class of money than would otherwise have been the case.
When the money resolution was first brought before the House, the Minister obviously had in mind a range of expenditure with, no doubt, a quantum attached to it. He has removed the condition precedent. That suggests to me a wider range of payments, and no doubt an increased quantum. What are the new categories that were not previously in his mind, and how much more shall we be asked to pay?
My second point relates to the matter that I raised with you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order. I believe that the House is interested to know the meaning of the phrase, "Minister of the Crown". I well know the meaning of the phrase, "Secretary of State"—not just one, but any old Secretary of State—but what is the meaning of the phrase, "Minister of the Crown"? I assume that it includes a Secretary of State. I assume, too, that it includes a Minister of State. I suppose that it includes an Under-Secretary. However, the House is entitled to know what it means.
I suspect that the phrase means that any old Minister can give the authority; if that is right, we are diluting the authority of the Secretary of State or, more specifically, removing his accountability. Under the previous money resolution, only the Secretary of State could give the authority, but now any old Minister can do so; the Secretary of State can slough off responsibility by saying that something was said by his Under-Secretary and he did not really mean it.
That brings me to the final point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, that we are removing the linkage in the second tiret, subsection (b), to "the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. When the money resolution was first before the House, it was fairly plain that it covered only expenditure linked to purposes
for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament".
In a sense, one knew what that meant. The resolution was fairly limited; there is the establishment of a Scottish Parliament and thus consequential expenditures flowing therefrom. If we remove the phrase, "the establishment of', the resolution will read:
in preparation for a Scottish Parliament".
That is a very large slice of the cake of expenditure—a whole range of consequential expenditures in Scotland and Wales may be deemed necessary as a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly is about to be set up. No doubt the Inland Revenue, the Department of Social Security, my old Department, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and many other Departments will say that, because a Scottish Parliament or a Welsh Assembly is about to be set up, further expenditure will be required.
The House is entitled to know the new classes of expenditure that are now covered by the money resolution. I should be pleased to hear from the Minister his assessment of the increase in that expenditure. He no doubt has some figure in mind. We want to know what his previous assessment was and the assessment that he now makes of the increase. Both figures would be extremely helpful.
A lot more work remains to be done by the Minister to persuade the House about the desirability of the money resolution before hon. Members give their consent.

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I should be pleased to answer some of the questions put by Opposition Members and by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). It is important to clear up first the question about Ministers of the Crown. The meaning will be wider than Secretary of State, because there may be expenditure by Departments not headed by a Secretary of State, for example, expenditure by the Inland Revenue on computer programmes to deal with tax issues. Much of the interpretation is common sense, but it seems to be lost on some Opposition Members.
The question of junior Ministers was also raised. Clearly, that is a red herring. In this respect, as in all others, junior Ministers take decisions only on matters referred to them by the Minister in charge of their Department. I should have expected that the experience of some Opposition Members would brush off on them to the point that they would understand what is going on.
We also heard some comments about the costs involved. The total estimated preparatory costs are £18 million to £25 million, as set out in the explanatory and financial memorandum. The money resolution does not change the facts laid before the House and discussed in the other place, which are now back in this House for discussion. DSS costs are included within that limit. All that will be conditional on the Supply process of dealing with money in this House. That, too, is well known to Opposition Members.

Mr. Ancram: It would be much more helpful if the Minister did not simply refer us to the ordinary ways in which that is done, but categorically answered the question about whether any of that expenditure will be paid from sources outwith the Scottish and Welsh blocks and whether any expenditure will be incurred by United Kingdom taxpayers rather than borne by the blocks in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. McLeish: The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) goes over old ground time and again. The answer is obvious: this settlement seeks to strike a balance in terms of Scots seeking to have a Parliament in Edinburgh. The Secretary of State is on record as saying that the costs of that will be borne by the block.

Mr. Hogg: And in Wales?

Mr. McLeish: I am speaking about Scotland. Opposition Members should contain themselves. They ask questions, but they fail to give me an opportunity to respond. I have often told them that listening would be in their long-term interests, instead of carrying on as they have for the past 18 years. With great courtesy, I say that we can see where that has got them.
I shall deal with the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. Paragraph 7.10 on page 23 of the White Paper states:
The Scottish Parliament will have power to authorise the Scottish Executive to undertake short-term borrowing to assist in the short-term matching of income and expenditure. It will not have a long-term borrowing power on its own account.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Can the Minister clarify his previous answer? If, for example, the Inland Revenue incurs additional expense while setting up the tartan tax, will it be recompensed from the Scottish block?

Mr. McLeish: The answer is self-evident. Labour Members do not call it the tartan tax. The Scots will be given the opportunity in the referendum on 11 September to choose whether the Parliament should have a tax-varying power. Of course, if costs are incurred via the Departments, they will come from the Scottish block. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) asks from a sedentary position why I did not say that. It has been said time and again. The questions have been posed before and answered reasonably.

Mr. Hogg: The Minister referred to the Scottish block, and I understand why he is speaking about that. The principle also applies to the Welsh block. The House wants to know whether what is true of the Scottish block is also true of the Welsh block—in other words, whether any expenditure in Wales that is authorised directly or indirectly under the money resolution will fall on the Welsh block and not be paid by taxpayers outside Wales.

Mr. McLeish: The answer is yes, but the debate should be conducted in a more dignified manner. The Opposition would have us believe that the settlement is not in the interests of the United Kingdom. They take a mean-spirited view and discuss the issues in terms of the UK v. Wales, and the UK v. Scotland. The country does not want that level of debate. It wants to probe hard on questions of finance, but, after 18 years of the Conservative Government's financial controls, we will not take lectures from the Opposition Front Bench.
The amendments to the money resolution are required in consequence of two sets of amendments made to the Bill in another place. Both are purely technical.
The first amendment is required to take account of the incorporation of the detailed provision for the conduct of the referendum as a schedule to the Bill. Hon. Members will recall that, during the earlier stages of the Bill, we proposed that that should be dealt with by Orders in Council, as had been the case in previous referendums. At the request of Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish in another place, we agreed that the change should be made. That will have the fortunate consequence of allowing the House and another place to rise this week, rather than having to wait simply to debate the Orders in Council. The amendment to the money resolution is purely technical.
The second and third amendments are also technical, and mirror amendments made in another place to clarify the scope of the finance provision in clause 5. Clause 5(2) allows expenditure in preparation for the establishment of a Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly to be paid out of money provided by Parliament. The intention is that that provision should cover not only


expenditure on the building or refurbishment of Parliament and Assembly buildings, but advance expenditure on, for example, any adjustment to Inland Revenue and DSS computer systems required to cope with the tax-varying powers of the Scottish Parliament.
Such changes have a long lead time and, if the tax-varying powers are to be available upon the establishment of the Scottish Parliament—whether or not the Parliament decides to use them—it may be necessary to incur expenditure before the main devolution legislation reaches the statute book. The amendments are intended to put beyond any doubt the question whether such expenditure would be covered by clause 5. The estimated costs shown in the explanatory and financial memorandum remain unchanged. All expenditure under the provision will be subject to the normal parliamentary rules of Supply.

Question put and agreed to.

Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill (Supplemental Allocation of Time)

The Minister for Home Affairs and Devolution, Scottish Office (Mr. Henry McLeish): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House of 3rd June 1997 be supplemented as follows:

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and, if not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on this Order.

(2) For the purpose of bringing proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment of the Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the Lords Amendment or, as the case may be, in the Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by the Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments the Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to the Lords Amendment.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

2.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of any further Message from the Lords on the Bill.

(2) The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3) For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) the Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;


(b) the Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to the Speaker to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of each remaining item designated by the Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their Proposal; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Reasons Committee

3.—(1) The Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

Extra time, &c.

4.—(1) This paragraph applies to—

(a) proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments,
(b) proceedings on any further Message from the Lords,
(c) proceedings on the appointment, nomination and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and on the appointment of its Chairman.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings to which this paragraph applies.

(3) Proceedings to which this paragraph applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(4) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings to which this paragraph applies shall be made except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(5) If proceedings to which this paragraph applies are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the interrupted proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

(6) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which proceedings to which this paragraph applies are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

The purpose of the motion is to ensure proper, structured consideration of the amendments made to the Bill in another place. The intention is to ensure that the changes proposed to the Bill are given fair consideration and that other business is not jeopardised, particularly at this stage in the Session.
We repeat that the referendums Bill is simple and straightforward and follows precedent. It essentially seeks the consent of the people of Scotland and Wales and paves the way for substantive legislation. The Bill itself has been debated extensively in both Houses. In the Commons, it was debated for almost 22 hours over four days. In the Lords, it was debated for almost 33 hours over six days. Government amendments to the Bill are essentially technical, in that they put on the face of the Bill the provisions that were previously in the Standing Orders. That move was proposed by the Opposition in another place and was accepted by the Government. The other Government amendment simply clarifies the scope of financial provision—it does not imply any additional expenditure over and above what was already anticipated.
Opposition amendments are also straightforward. One seeks to require the referendums to be held on the same day. The Government have made it clear all along that there are good reasons for holding the Welsh and Scottish referendums on different days. Another Opposition amendment inserts the word "income" into the second question on the ballot paper. Again, we have always made it clear that that is both unnecessary and undesirable.

Mr. Edward Garnier: The Minister mentioned the argument about the dates of the two referendums and he said that the Government had given reasons for their position both here and in another place. Will he develop those arguments later today, or is this the only occasion upon which he will condescend to address the House on that matter?

Mr. McLeish: I hope that my contributions to the House could never be described as condescending. The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), will deal with that matter later.
We have no doubt that the Opposition intend to debate the issues sensibly. However, our experience in Committee, when Opposition Members tabled several frivolous amendments, has made the Government wary and not prepared to take any chances. The timetable motion aims to strike the right balance between the need to complete the business and the need to provide adequate time for debate. Time taken debating the allocation of time motion could be used to debate Lords amendments. This seems to be a straightforward and sensible measure, and I therefore urge hon. Members to move on quickly to debate the substantive issues.

Mr. Michael Ancram: I have heard some introductions to guillotine motions, but the Minister's comments take the biscuit for their breathtaking arrogance. I shall explain why. The motion is another step along the disgraceful path of railroading this important constitutional legislation through the House. Only yesterday, the Government were still amending the Bill in the House of Lords. I shall turn to today's events later.
The Minister asked whether I intended to take up time debating the motion. I shall take as little time as I can, despite my genuine anger about this imposition. I am in a quandary, as we have only three hours in which to consider the Bill and that time started when the Minister got to his feet. Every moment we spend debating the motion is a minute subtracted from the time that we have to discuss the very important amendments.
If we were to call a Division, that time would also be subtracted from the time that we need to debate those amendments. Therefore, I do not intend either to speak for long or to divide the House. However, we must do justice to the amendments today, as we were not able even to discuss them when the Bill was before the House previously, because of the guillotine imposed at that time. It would constitute a double gag if we did not discuss the amendments today, and that is totally unacceptable in this Parliament.
The shortness of my speech does not detract from my concern about the arrogance with which the Government treat the House of Commons and the synthetic and


pathetic display of irritation that they evinced against the other place. The Minister cannot argue that the motion is designed to prevent delay. He said that it is intended to ensure that "other business is not jeopardised". Let us look at the provisions of the motion. They will end consideration of the Bill in three hours. There is no other business on the Order Paper today and, as a result of the motion, we shall rise before the normal Adjournment of the House. Therefore, it is simply wrong to suggest that the motion is necessary in order to protect other business.
Still more breathtaking is the fact that, far from dealing only with Opposition amendments from another place, the Government are amending their own amendments. In the first block of amendments, the Government disagree with the Lords amendments that they passed in another place. As I have said, it is breathtakingly arrogant to suggest that the debate on the motion is somehow a waste of time. The Government are drafting the Bill on the hoof in their headlong rush to produce it.
The Government expressed irritation with the other place when the amendments were passed—I think that all hon. Members will remember the Minister's comments about hereditary peers misusing or abusing their position. It is interesting to examine the facts surrounding those votes in another place. For the first amendment on 3 July concerning the referendum dates, the Opposition in the House of Lords had a majority of seven. Some 49 Labour life peers did not participate in that vote. Where were they? For the second amendment on 21 July, the Opposition had a majority of 17. Some 32 Labour life peers did not vote that day.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has the figures available, but will he tell the House what percentage of members of the House of Lords voted in those Divisions? That will give us an idea of the importance that the other place attached to the amendments.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is for Governments to get their business through. On that occasion, Labour life peers—who, we are told, are sent to the House of Lords to do a job for their party—were simply not present. It is not surprising that Labour Members of Parliament appear so willing to relinquish their seats in this place in order to move to the House of Lords, as they obviously have a pretty cushy role there—they do not even have to turn up to vote.

Mr. Garnier: Labour life peers might have been absent for those votes because the referendum dates—whether they are a week or a month apart—are not part of the Labour party's election manifesto.

Mr. Ancram: That may be so. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) will have more to say about that when we discuss the relevant amendments.
It is quite extraordinary that tonight—the night before we debate the Scottish White Paper—hon. Members will be sent home before the normal Adjournment of the House. I cannot help feeling that the Government are ensuring that English comrades are out of the way before the White Paper is debated tomorrow. The Government do not want them to see the impact that the White Paper's proposals will have on the constitutional position of England and on English Members of Parliament.
The guillotine procedure is never welcome: it is the exercising of Executive power, backed by a parliamentary majority, over the rights of Parliament to discuss and debate substantive and important legislation. It is particularly abusive today as it is based on nothing more than administrative convenience. It demonstrates the Labour Government's total disregard of parliamentary democracy, and it is another step down a dangerous road of which all who cherish the rights of Parliament should be very wary indeed. If it were not for the fact that dividing the House would increase the gag on debate, I would oppose the motion.
However, we must discuss important amendments that we were prevented from considering when the Bill was before the House previously. Therefore, reluctantly and regretfully, I must urge my hon. Friends to proceed to consideration of the amendments from another place as soon as possible.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the Lords amendments relate to tax, it may be convenient for the House if I were to assist it and clarify the position by asking three precise questions.
First, are we correct in understanding that a single person who earns £30,145 a year would be required to pay an extra £660 in taxation if a Scottish Parliament were to raise the basic rate of income tax by 3p in the pound? That would be an 11 per cent. increase in that person's income tax bill. Do the Government expect companies to compensate their employees for that large increase, thereby increasing inflation and making Scottish business less competitive?
My second question refers to the White Paper, which projects that a 3p in the pound increase in the basic rate of income tax will produce £450 million of extra revenue. Where does that figure come from? If the tax produces only £250 million, what happens then?
I made inquiries of the accountants Ernst and Young, and Mr. Ian Hunter said that it was likely that the figures went back to 1995. Eight per cent. of the UK total yield of £1.6 billion would be yielded by 1p on income tax. But there is a problem. Are we talking about earned income or savings? If it is simply earned income, the revenue accruing is likely to be well under £450 million. Could that be clarified?
Thirdly, Scottish businesses suffered injustice over many years when making larger rates payments than their counterparts in England. The uniform business rate seeks to resolve that obvious anomaly. Why, then, should that successful system be devolved to the new Scottish Parliament, which will then have the ability to increase the rates paid or even to restructure the entire system? Is that not going against the level playing field offered to Scottish businesses?
Some comment on those questions at the Minister's convenience would be valuable before we proceed.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I want to follow briefly what my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) said. Like him, I recognise the need to be brief, for the reasons that he outlined, but I wish to voice my strong objections to the guillotine motion.
My right hon. Friend is entirely right when he says that there is no justification for this guillotine motion on either narrow or broad grounds. The plain truth is that we can sit here until 10 o'clock without infringing the usual procedures.
The first question that the Minister might care to answer is why we do not have five hours, which would at least take us up to 10 o'clock, which is the usual time for the completion of such business; instead, the debate has been limited to three hours. My strong suspicion is that the Government do not wish to debate the substantial amendments.
In any event, the House will shortly go into recess for three months. If the Government were seriously concerned about debating the amendments, they would postpone our three-month recess by a day or two, or even more. Again, the House might suspect that Ministers do not want to debate the amendments.
That brings me to my last point. I do not believe that the House, either now or at any other time, can properly debate devolution for Scotland or Wales until we see the proposals for England. That is because no plan for devolution in Scotland or Wales will prove sustainable or durable unless it is fair to England. There are a variety of reasons for that. I shall not weary the House by repeating them today, but the House is entitled to know what plans the Government have to make the proposals for Scotland and Wales fair to England. No one has told us that.
On the contrary, the Government have proposed a range of ad hoc measures, such as the reform of the other place and an elected mayor for the city of London. There may be merit in those measures, but we are entitled to see the broad frame of their constitutional proposals. I would wish the debate to go on for day after day, month after month, until we know how the proposals will be made fair to England. We should be concerned with the needs not just of England but of Scotland and Wales. Unless the proposals are fair to England, they will not last in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noted that the White Paper on Welsh devolution specifically says that one reason why the people of Wales should be encouraged to vote yes in the referendum is that, otherwise, they would be left behind by the devolution proposals in England, about which we, and they, have not been told?

Mr. Hogg: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government are clearly, on their own account, seeking to be fair to Wales. The one issue that they have not thought to address is that of fairness to England. I wish to see the debate enlarged for as long as may be necessary to address that question.

Mr. Alex Salmond: The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) speaks for England; we would have expected

no less of him. When he was the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, he used to act for England, even though he had responsibilities that covered the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a different memory from me.
I am delighted that the Opposition will not force the motion to a vote, or I would have found myself voting for a guillotine motion, a rare event in my parliamentary career. Those on the Conservative Benches who were members of the previous Parliament voted for many guillotine motions, and I am sure that Labour Members will find themselves voting for many guillotine motions during this Parliament. I seldom, if ever, vote for guillotine motions, but I certainly would have voted for this one tonight if it had been forced to a Division, and I shall say why.
I asked the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) about the number of people who had voted in the other place. I do not have the exact figures, but I understand that about 200 peers voted on the amendments that we will consider tonight. That is 20 per cent. or less of the total composition of the House of Lords. My goodness, it was lucky that there was not a 40 per cent. rule in the other place when it was addressing those questions.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: rose—

Mr. Salmond: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment if he is fortunate.
The noble Lords could not have considered the amendments of such momentous importance that they were willing to come in droves from the shires to debate and vote on the future of the United Kingdom, or to bring some wisdom to this House to enable us to consider the matters. [Interruption.] I do not have a brief for the Labour party; nor do I have a brief for the House of Lords. I am merely pointing out that 80 per cent.—four fifths—of the other place did not bother to vote on the amendments that we are considering; unless I am to believe that 80 per cent. of their lordships were caught in an agony of indecision, frozen on the Benches, not knowing whether to put back the Scottish referendum by a week or bring forward the Welsh referendum by a week. Those were the essential decisions which had to be made and which their lordships were considering.
When we debate a guillotine motion, we should consider the substance of the amendments before us and the importance that their lordships wanted to give to them.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: On the matter of numbers and proportions, the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made very well, does he notice that only a small proportion of Labour Members are here today to debate the Bill? Does that not show that this most important piece of constitutional legislation is not held in high regard by Labour Members?

Mr. Salmond: I do not want to engage in a numbers game with the hon. Lady, but I do not think that the Conservative Benches are packed to overflowing this afternoon. One third of the parliamentary Scottish National party are in their places this evening, and if one third of the other parties were here tonight we would have a fuller House.
The hon. Lady makes my point for me. The absence of her hon. Friends and Labour Members shows that the Lords amendments are not particularly important. Members of the House of Lords did not turn up to vote for them, and Members of the House of Commons have not turned up to vote them down. We should draw the conclusion that the amendments do not constitute points of substance. I regret that. I hold no brief for the House of Lords or for the Labour party, but we have a revising Chamber. [Interruption.] I welcome the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), the leader of the Welsh National party, to the Chamber. Yet again, the national parties are well represented.
We should look to a revising Chamber to put to this House points of real substance.

Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman pointed out that the leader of Plaid Cymru has just come into the Chamber. Could it be that the good representation on the nationalist Benches reflects the fact that nationalist Members understand more clearly than the Labour party that the proposals being put to Scotland and Wales in the referendums will lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom, and that is what they want?

Mr. Salmond: That representation shows the dedication of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. We are good parliamentarians, even though we have not drafted the legislation. The right hon. Member would do well to leave the future of Scotland and Wales to the judgment of the Scottish and Welsh people. Whatever destination we want for the people of Scotland, one thing on which most democrats are agreed is that the decision will be made by the people of Scotland and Wales, who will be judge and jury.
I hold no brief for the House of Lords, but I had hoped that a revising Chamber that was considering the first referendum in the United Kingdom since 1979 would make points of real substance. Two issues could have been debated tonight if their lordships had felt that these matters were significant. An amendment that examined or asked people to think about the relationship between parliamentary sovereignty and popular sovereignty would have been worth an extended debate in this Chamber. What a pity that such an amendment is not before us. Their lordships seemed to think that other issues were more important.
We could also have discussed a three-way referendum, which is supported by the majority of people in Scotland. The referendum could have been a choice between independence, devolution and the status quo. The right hon. Member for Devizes is nodding. I remind him that, when I put such an amendment to the House in May, Conservative Front Benchers sat on their hands and did not vote, although many Conservative Back Benchers did so. When the matter was pursued in the other place, it was not thought worthy of taking to a vote. Instead, we have these trivial amendments to change the date of the referendum—as if the people of Wales, having debated this issue for a quarter of a century, will change their minds one way or the other because the referendum is a week sooner or a week later. What nonsense, and what an insult to the intelligence of the people of Wales. Why bring to the House amendments that seek to alter the timetable by one week either way?
When we consider a guillotine motion, we should examine the substance of the Lords amendments. I was astonished to learn that, because of the residential requirements, 140 Scottish peers will be entitled to vote in the referendum. I did not know that there were 140 Scottish peers. I have examined what the fully equipped Scottish laird costs the people of Scotland—and, indeed, the people of the United Kingdom. Far too much, in my opinion, if this is the quality of the amendments that they send to this House.

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: No.
We would do well to support the guillotine motion, to go forward in this debate and to leave the decision to the people of Scotland.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I want to intervene briefly on the issue of the timetable motion. The spectacle of two members of the previous Government declaiming against the evils of the guillotine motion was nauseating. It was rather like Herod coming back after his notorious exhibition and declaiming from the pulpit against the evils of infanticide. We had many guillotine motions in the previous Parliament, which often were not justified and resulted in badly debated legislation. It is intolerable for Conservatives to argue against such a motion now.
I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). I cannot remember in which context he made it, but his adjectives "synthetic" and "pathetic" were excellent. Conservative Members have been synthetic and pathetic this evening.
Conservative Members have clearly not read the important report that was published yesterday by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons. I am a member of that Select Committee: one or two other members may be present, although I do not see any of the Conservative members. Opposition spokesmen have not listened to what their hon. Friends on that Committee have recommended. We must find better ways of ensuring that all parts of a Bill are properly discussed and that we do not end up with the absurdities of timetable motions. It may be a forlorn hope, but I should like this to be the last timetable motion. In future, we should have programming motions that establish at the outset—by agreement, when that can be achieved—sensible ways of dispatching the business of the House to ensure that all parts of a Bill are considered properly.
It is clear that we need not spend a great deal of time on the Lords amendments, but some big issues should have been debated earlier. There would have been a better debate if there had been discussion among all parties to ensure a proper, paced discussion of the Bill. I hope that the Opposition will read the report and understand what their representatives, including the shadow Leader of the House, have signed up to.
It is extremely important to make progress on this legislation. As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) said, in the end democracy will achieve real reform in Wales, Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. It is time that we got on with the job.

Mr. Norman A. Godman: In my 14 years in the House, I have voted against many guillotine motions, but I would have been delighted to vote for this one. When I think of the way in which this odd job lot opposite rammed through the poll tax legislation, in spite of the deep distress and anger of the overwhelming majority of people I represent, I have no sympathy for them. In fact, in the past few minutes I have been intensely amused by these whingeing Tories. The Germans have a word for it: schadenfreude. That fits remarkably well.
I have listened to the endless whingeing of members of a regional party of England who seek to deny what the majority of the people of Scotland so ardently desire, a Scottish Parliament. If in the fulness of time that leads to a federal system with an English Parliament, so be it. As far as I am concerned, they can have one. This legislation is a step in that direction.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) often voices a confused view on devolution. He advocates an Assembly for Northern Ireland, yet he is opposed to devolution for the rest of Britain. We should ignore the whingeing of the right hon. Gentleman and the other distressed members of what is thankfully a regional party—and long may it remain so.

Mr. McLeish: I shall be brief, because the Opposition said that they wanted the maximum time for debate.

Mr. Godman: I forgot to ask the question that I intended to ask. For many years, I have argued for an international architectural competition, such as we had for the national museum of Scotland. Has my hon. Friend considered the feasibility of having that underused building, Holyrood palace, as the location for the Scottish Parliament?

Mr. McLeish: I thought that that was going to be a helpful intervention, but I was then worried that my hon. Friend would suggest that the Parliament should be located in his constituency.
The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) was very ungracious. As several hon. Members have pointed out, it is breathtaking to hear the Opposition—as they now are—talking about guillotines. They seem to want us to involve ourselves in some kind of collective amnesia, to forget that the past 18 years happened and to believe that there were no guillotines. They want us to believe that the procedures of the House were honoured, and that every convention was observed to the letter.
We will take no lectures. Words such as "synthetic", "pathetic", "breathtaking", "arrogance" and "anger" are bandied about—

Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLeish: Not now.
In fact, the only people who will be angry about the Conservative Opposition's reaction are the people of Scotland and Wales, who see their every ambition thwarted by Conservative Members' failure to remember that 1 May was a catastrophic day in the political fortunes

of the Conservative party in both Scotland and Wales. They may have missed the important fact that, on 24 July, we published a White Paper relating to Scotland. To put it mildly, there was a sensationally positive reaction in many parts of Scotland.

Mr. Hogg: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLeish: In a minute.
Let me draw hon. Members' attention to another date. We have had 1 May; we have had 24 July. Now 11 September looms, and the Conservative party in Scotland—and in Wales, a week later—had better sort itself out. The Scottish and Welsh people are not forgiving of a party that fails to address the realities, and to try to do something positive to help those whom its members purport to represent.

Mr. Hogg: Even if we assume that there must be a guillotine, and even if we assume that we must complete the business today, we must ask why the motion does not provide for a five-hour debate, which would have concluded at 10 pm rather than 8 pm.

Mr. McLeish: I do not think that that question need delay us. We are debating the timetable motion.
I am not inclined to waste any more of the House's valuable time. As Opposition Members suggested a few minutes ago, we need time in which to debate the issue—which I might be able to do if hon. Members stopped intervening.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) asked several questions. He suggested that a single person earning more than £30,000 a year would pay £660 in tax. I think that that is about right, but I intend to write to my hon. Friend confirming the details of where the tax will bite. He also asked about the £450 million yield. The source of that figure is Her Majesty's Treasury.
My hon. Friend asked about the uniform business rate. We have written into the devolution package outlined in the White Paper a proposal that legislative powers for local government should be passed to the Scottish Parliament, and we therefore thought it consistent to pass the power relating to the uniform business rate to the Parliament as well. That means that the Parliament itself will decide on the rate in future. The position would have been exactly the same if the power had been retained at Westminster.
I believe that this is a good settlement, for the United Kingdom, for Scotland and for Wales. Is it not appropriate in the mother of Parliaments for the Conservative Opposition to show a little humility? Will they accept that people have rights and aspirations and send us to the House to speak on our behalf? The timetable motion would expedite the business of the House by allowing a structured debate, so that we can ensure that the Welsh and the Scots have a chance to vote on 11 September. If we value democracy, let us start to debate the substantive items.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

REFERENDUM IN SCOTLAND

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out ("Her Majesty may by Order in Council") and insert ("the Secretary of State may by order")

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to take the following: amendment (a) in lieu of the Lords amendment, in page 1, line 5, leave out
`such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint'
and insert `11th September 1997'.
Lords amendments No. 5, plus the motion to disagree; No. 6, plus the motion to disagree, and amendment (a) thereto; No. 7, plus the motion to disagree; and No. 10, plus the motion to disagree.

Mr. Hain: Lords amendments Nos. 1, 5, 6 and 10 are part of a group made by the Government at the request of the Opposition in another place to incorporate the material on the detailed conduct of the referendums as a schedule to the Bill. We shall debate the rest of that group later. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 6 deal with the mechanism for specifying the dates of the referendums. The Government have stated their intention to hold the referendum in Scotland on 11 September and the Welsh referendum a week later on 18 September.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Before my hon. Friend goes into the technicalities, will he clarify the position relating to arrangements for opening the sessions of the Welsh Assembly, in view of the somewhat bizarre articles on the front pages of today's editions of The Guardian and The Western Mail? They almost produced visions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales using his well-known pull in Washington to persuade President Clinton to come over, step into the breach and—rather like President Kennedy before him—issue from the steps of Cardiff city hall the statement "Ich bin ein Cardiffer". I understand from the Press Association, however, that Buckingham palace has now said that the entire story was a fabrication.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The two journalists concerned, David Hencke of The Guardian and Michael Settle of The Western Mail, are respected journalists on highly respected newspapers, but they were both sold a pup, if not a corgi. Paragraph 1.20 of the White Paper states clearly:
The Assembly will be a Crown body. The Government envisages that Her Majesty the Queen or Her representative would formally open the Assembly after each election.

Following today's story, Buckingham palace issued a press release stating:
The Guardian story is nonsense. The wording of the White Paper on this issue means precisely what it says and The Queen was kept informed throughout its preparation. Far from The Queen not wanting to open the Welsh Assembly, it would be very much part of her constitutional role to do so.
As I was saying, the Government have stated their intention to hold the referendum in Scotland on 11 September, with the Welsh referendum a week later on 18 September. In its original form, the Bill allowed the dates of the referendums to be appointed by Her Majesty in Orders in Council. As I said earlier, we shall shortly deal with the amendments to incorporate those orders in the main Bill. Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 6 would replace the original mechanism for setting the dates with a power for the Secretary of State to appoint the dates by order.
The orders would have been used to set down 11 and 18 September. It makes sense to write the dates into the Bill now, rather than requiring an order to be made. We therefore propose amendments in lieu of Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 6 that would do that. Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 10 would then be rendered unnecessary.
Lords amendment No. 7 would require the referendums to be held on the same date. I fail to understand the Opposition's obsession with a single date. There is no reason why the Scottish and Welsh referendums should be held on the same day; they are separate referendums, being held in two separate countries on two separate sets of proposals. There would be as much sense in arguing that the referendum on our proposals for London should be held on 11 September as well.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Over recent weeks, it has been argued strongly that the referendums should be on separate dates. It has been pointed out that our arguments on behalf of Wales will gain the attention only of the London-based press—which, overwhelmingly, is the press that is read in Wales—if the referendum takes place on a separate date from the Scottish referendum. Otherwise, the Welsh arguments will be subsumed into the Scottish arguments. The two White Papers are, of course, quite different.

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, to which I shall return shortly.
We want the referendum to give the people of Wales an opportunity to demonstrate clearly that they endorse our proposals with as high a turnout as possible. To that end, we need to ensure that the people are well informed about our proposals, and that their decision is based on a full and thorough understanding of what the Assembly will mean, what it will do and what it will bring to Wales.

Mr. Llew Smith: My hon. Friend said that the electorate should be well informed. Rather than spending approximately £1 million on propaganda to push the yes vote, could you not have spent the money on


teachers who would otherwise be made redundant? If you refuse to do that, and insist that Government money—taxpayers' money—must be spent—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that when he uses the word you, he addresses the Chair and not a colleague.

Mr. Smith: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister insists on using taxpayers' money to pay for a propaganda exercise. Surely that money could have been allocated to both sides so that the electorate, to use the Minister's words, could have been well informed.

Mr. Hain: I fundamentally disagree with my hon. Friend and I shall explain why. It is no part of the Government's duty to conduct propaganda on behalf of either the yes or the no campaigns. It is part of the Government's duty to inform the electorate about the detail of our policies. Does my hon. Friend seriously suggest that the electorate should be ignorant of the policies on which we are holding a referendum? Surely not. People should be well informed, and the Government are spending prudently and modestly well under £1 million to inform the electorate about our proposals.

Mr. James Gray: I welcome the Minister's assurance about spending a large amount to make sure that everybody is aware of the referendum issues. Does that mean that he will spend equal amounts on advancing arguments for yes and for no?

Mr. Hain: Obviously the hon. Gentleman was not listening to the clear answer. We are not financing yes or no campaigns: we are explaining the Government's proposals.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Hain: Hon. Members should calm down.
Does the hon. Gentleman wish the people of Wales to be ignorant of the Government's proposals? The answer is plainly yes. It would be extraordinary if the Government did not seek fairly to put the White Paper's proposals to the people so that, when they are invited to vote in a referendum, they are fully informed on the detail.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: Part of the argument put to the people of Wales in the White Paper is, "Look, you must go along with this proposal because it is part of a package of constitutional reform which will include the English regions." There is no package of constitutional reform and we do not know the proposals. It is piecemeal constitutional reform in which each section of the population is being kept in the dark about the intentions of the others. That is one of our reasons for objecting to the referendums being held on different dates. Can the hon. Gentleman not understand that?

Mr. Hain: It is not clear from the hon. Gentleman's question whether he is advocating constitutional reform. Does he support the Government's proposals for devolving power to Scotland and Wales and, increasingly,

to the English regions, starting with London next year? His intervention was interesting. I make it absolutely clear that the Government have been careful to put in the White Paper a considered programme for devolving power and decision making to the people of Wales.
We have made an excellent start on informing people. The White Papers for Wales and for Scotland have been best sellers in both countries. I am not sure whether they are selling as well as a Jeffrey Archer novel, although they are selling much better than many of my books. The White Papers are best sellers because there is a thirst for knowledge and an interest in Wales and Scotland in the proposals. The Government intend to continue to inform the public. Both White Papers have been reprinted twice and we shall continue to conduct an information campaign.

Mr. Llew Smith: How many teachers could be employed using the £1 million that is being spent on this propaganda exercise? What is the subsidy per copy of the White Paper on the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Hain: It is curious and somewhat regrettable that my hon. Friend's question and his argument effectively play into the hands of the Tory Opposition. That is disappointing. I remind him that Conservative policy was responsible for sacking 600 teachers in Wales in the past year. We should concentrate on exposing Conservative attacks on teachers, nurses, the health service and education and on many other areas of public provision in Wales.

Mr. Nigel Evans: How many extra teachers could be employed using the £1 million that is being spent on the distribution of literature to the people of Wales?

Mr. Hain: Crocodile tears by Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen will not do. The Conservatives were responsible for sacking almost 600 teachers in the past year and sacked more in the year before that. They also sacked nurses and cut housing provision. The right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) repatriated £100 million from the Welsh budget to the Treasury because he was not interested in supporting the Welsh people.
As well as reading our White Paper proposals, people need to debate them and to hear what different interests have to say about them. For that reason, it is important that the referendum in Wales is not held on the same day as the one in Scotland. Regrettably, the national media have a tendency to take less interest in events across Offa's dyke than in events beyond Hadrian's wall. If the referendums were held on the same day, there would be a real risk that our proposals for Wales would receive less public scrutiny and debate than would those for Scotland. People in Wales might arrive at the ballot box after having heard a great deal about a Scottish Parliament and relatively little about proposals for a Welsh Assembly. The people of Wales deserve better. The Conservatives are anxious to keep Welsh people in the dark because they fear a popular tide of opinion for a Welsh Assembly and for our proposals for devolving decision making.
I shall quote from an interesting study of experience in the last referendum in Wales in 1979. A pamphlet called "The Road to the Referendum" was produced by the Institute of Welsh Affairs—a reputable body which is financed by many different institutions in Wales, including some businesses and the Bank of Wales. That means that Sir Julian Hodge's Bank of Wales was involved in financing the pamphlet, which makes interesting reading, although I am sure that Conservative Members do not want to hear what it contains. It describes the 1979 experience in the following terms:
In 1979 the Welsh and Scottish referendums were held on the same day, … and UK media attention was focused on Scotland … In consequence the distinctive Welsh case for devolution was never fully understood by the Welsh public … The case for holding the two referendums on different days … is persuasive and is an additional argument for an informed debate".
That is the evidence presented by the Institute of Welsh Affairs in support of the Government's policy for separate referendums. [Interruption.] It is evidence from an important study, and the document makes a further point about media coverage in Wales and Scotland. It states:
Wales's 'national' media are overwhelmingly located in London. It is estimated that in 1979 the daily circulation of the Welsh morning papers (Western Mail and Daily Post) was slightly less than 150,000 copies, whereas the London morning papers had a circulation in excess of 700,000 in Wales.
The London press was largely uninterested in the devolution issue but when it did consider the subject, concentrated far more on the Scottish dimension … a similar pattern emerged in the coverage of the two referendum campaigns on the BBC and ITN main evening news programmes".
That is an important point about media coverage.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hain: I shall finish my point and then let the hon. Gentleman intervene.
The pamphlet continued:
The situation today with regard to London's media penetration of Wales is cause for even greater concern. The two Welsh dailies have suffered a significant decline in circulation. The Western Mail and Daily Post now have a combined circulation of less than 100,000 (source: UK Press Gazette/Audit Bureau of Circulation 1996).
That figure was down from 150,000 last time.
The contrast with the position in Scotland is striking. There 90 per cent. of the daily papers in circulation are produced in Scotland. The figures for Wales is 13 per cent.
Furthermore, for television coverage
Approximately 35 per cent. of the Welsh population live in what are described as 'overlap areas', enabling them to choose (as many do) to watch programmes from English transmitters. This compares with only 2.5 per cent. for Scotland.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Richard Livsey: rose—

Mr. Hain: Before giving way, as I shall, I must emphasise the fact that there would be less Welsh-only coverage of the debate in Wales. That is why we need a separate day for the referendum, so as to focus debate on our separate proposals.

6 pm

Mr. Livsey: Will the Minister note that, during the 1979 referendum, the academic, Barry Jones of Cardiff, did a study of the coverage and discovered that the Western Mail was read by 14 per cent. of the population at that time, while The Sun, the most widely read paper, devoted only 1 sq in to coverage of Welsh devolution, all of which represented the no case?

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes the point well.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister tell the House the Institute of Welsh Affairs' opinion of the White Paper, and whether it will support the yes campaign?

Mr. Hain: The Institute of Welsh Affairs is an independent body which conducts studies—

Mr. Jenkin: Answer.

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman represents Essex. He is not a Member for a Welsh constituency, and knows nothing about the Institute of Welsh Affairs, yet he presumes to ask such questions. I should be happy to give way to him all the evening if he continued to ask that sort of question.
The Institute of Welsh Affairs is an independent study group, which produced the dispassionate document from which I quoted—[Interruption.] Now the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) is laughing too. Is he denigrating the Institute of Welsh Affairs?

Mr. Evans: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hain: I am pleased to see that, because the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) seemed to be doing so.
Our proposals for Scotland and Wales—

Mr. John D. Taylor: We in the Ulster Unionist party certainly support the general thrust of the Government's proposals for devolution in Scotland and Wales, and agree that the referendums should be held on two separate dates. However, the Minister's presentation of media coverage is defective, in that it is not a simple matter of who reads which daily paper. The strength of the weekly newspapers in Scotland and Wales, which are read by all the people in both those nations, is important too.

Mr. Hain: That is a fair point. However, I was pointing out that, as I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will accept, the situation in Wales is different from that in Scotland in terms of daily newspaper readership.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hain: I will, but this had better be the last intervention.

Mr. Garnier: I am doubly grateful.
Does the Minister accept that, when we talk about media coverage, we are talking about more than newspapers? Whether for good or ill, most people nowadays get their political news from the television. It is therefore the coverage by Granada Television, looking into north Wales, by HTV and by the Welsh television section of the BBC that matters. Those broadcasting companies will give ample coverage, probably great coverage, to the Welsh democratic question. Why should the Minister lack the confidence to allow the debate to go out?

Mr. David Hanson: He does not know Wales.

Mr. Hain: The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is another Conservative based in an English constituency who simply does not understand Wales. I urge him to become better informed. I dealt with the points about television earlier, when I cited evidence from the Institute of Welsh Affairs pamphlet.
It is a fact, although a regrettable one—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson) often complains about it—that a significant proportion, more than one third, of viewers cannot receive Welsh television channels such as HTV Wales or BBC Wales. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be joking if he thinks that Granada Television or HTV West will devote any time, let alone a significant amount of time, to coverage of Welsh issues. They simply do not.
Our proposals for Scotland and Wales are different. There is no reason for the two ballots to be held on the same day. Indeed, there are good reasons for them to be held on distinct days. However, there is every reason to give the people of Wales the time and the opportunity that they deserve to hear and debate our proposals before they go to the polling stations.
We propose to give Wales a real voice for the first time. Real democracy means giving people a real say about decisions over schools, hospitals and jobs. An Assembly will give Wales a better health service by ensuring that scarce resources are spent on nurses rather than pen pushers and form fillers, and better schools by setting tough new standards for literacy, numeracy and overall achievement.
An Assembly will also deliver better job opportunities by providing a voice in Europe and around the world to attract investment and to back Welsh companies. It will provide better value for money by bringing the quangos to public account, and will scrutinise spending decisions. I ask the House to support the Government in upholding the right of the people of Scotland and Wales to have referendums on separate days.

Mr. Jenkin: The Minister's closing remarks did not sound much like the dispassionate advocacy of fact without bias that he claims for the White Paper. When he said that the White Paper was some sort of dispassionate discourse on the pros and cons of a Welsh Assembly, that was one of the more laughable parts of his speech. If that is the basis on which he proposes to overturn Lords amendment No. 7, it rather undermines the strength of his case.
I welcome the fact that the dates of the referendums will be written into the Bill. It is better to put them in primary than in secondary legislation. However, I must point out to the Minister that there would be no need for the debate if the House had discussed the dates properly before the Bill went to the House of Lords.
We must be grateful to the other place for giving us the opportunity to have the debate that was denied us by the guillotine in Committee and on Third Reading. I am reminded of the fact that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) voted for the guillotine—and then got his come-uppance when he was not called to speak on Third Reading. Nothing gave me greater satisfaction than to see the biter bit in that way.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I would gladly forgo a reasonable number of contributions in the House if that would limit the number of anti-Scottish remarks that we so regularly hear from the Conservative Benches. Does the hon. Gentleman really intend to tell the House that the most important aspect that the Conservative and Unionist party can find to talk about concerning the referendum for the Scottish people and the setting up of a Parliament, is the date on which the referendum will be held? Is that magnitude of the Conservative party's contribution?

Mr. Jenkin: If the House of Lords had made the sort of amendments that the hon. Gentleman suggested, which a cursory thought suggests might have been beyond the scope of the Bill in any case—if they were not, why did he not table them himself? [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman tabled a convoluted amendment, concerning a complicated voting structure that some of my colleagues found difficult to support.
I suspect that if the other place had amended the Bill as aggressively as the hon. Gentleman suggested it should have been amended, he would have been the first to jump to his feet and say that it was none of the business of the other place, and that it should not be interfering at all.
This interesting set of amendments underlines the mix-and-match nature of the Bill and the paper, string and sealing wax approach of the Government, because we are amending some of the Government's own Lords amendments.
I wish to concentrate on amendment No. 7. It was felt strongly in the other place that there was no case for the referendums being seven days apart. The Government's only argument concerned media coverage, to which I shall refer later. It was made clear in the other place that the Government wanted as much information to be given to voters as possible. The House will forgive a hollow laugh at that if we consider all the guillotines applied to the Bill to get the debates over as quickly as possible and with as little information reaching the voters as possible.
My noble Friend Lord Crickhowell said that the last devolution referendums in the 1970s were conducted on the same day and that there was no lack of debate. It is only those who lost the argument by a majority of four to one in Wales who are complaining that the information was somehow defective. They are blaming the messengers rather than the message for the result.
If there were a real desire in the Government for the people of Wales and the people of Scotland to have the information that they need, the Prime Minister would


fulfil his promise to the House and the Bills would be published in advance of the referendums so that the people of Wales and the people of Scotland would know the details of what they were voting on. That would be a dispassionate and unbiased presentation of fact, instead of the sales brochures issued by the Government.
If information were the determining factor, there would be a delay so that the Bills could be published and to facilitate the maximum amount of debate. Why will there be a gap of only a week? A week may be a long time in politics, but it is short in most people's imaginations. If information is the objective, why not have, say, a six-week or six-month gap between the referendums? The referendum on London, as the Minister pointed out, is not until 1 May, which gives ample time for proper discussion and debate after the publication of the White Paper.
The danger of allowing only a week before the Welsh referendum—given the problems of media coverage to which the Minister alluded—is that there will be saturation coverage in the national and London-based press, which is widely read in Wales, of the result of the Scottish referendum. One can imagine that result being heavily reported on Friday and Saturday, and in the Sunday newspapers, and that its implications will still be considered on the Monday and Tuesday. The debate in Wales will be swamped by the coverage of the Scottish result. Perhaps that is the real intention of the Government.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What is wrong with that?

Mr. Jenkin: I should be delighted if there were adequate coverage of both decisions, but the compressed gap between the referendums suggests that they want the Scottish result to impinge on the Welsh decision.

Mr. John Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise how insulting it is to imply that the people of Wales will simply catch on to the coat tails of the referendum affecting Scotland and that they do not have the ability to make up their own minds? We want the Welsh people to have the fullest possible information and debate to make the right decision—to vote yes.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman should make that point to Ministers who think that there will be some kind of domino effect to get the result they want.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is just as much in the interests of the no campaign to have the referendums in the two countries conducted on different days as it is in the interests of the yes campaign, bearing in mind the fact that a major part of the rhetorical attack by the Conservative party on the Welsh devolution proposals was the drawing of invidious comparisons between the Scottish and Welsh proposals? If the Conservative party is interested in a genuine and focused debate, why does it not support conducting the referendums on two separate dates?

Mr. Jenkin: I am not interested in helping the no campaign or the yes campaign with regard to the dates of the referendum. The dates should be as neutral as

possible. What we have here is the pinnacle of the Government's efforts to manipulate the process of decision making. The process started a long time before the election, when some in the Labour party started to doubt the wisdom of the devolution project. The tartan tax was proving difficult to defend, so Islington Labour came up with the idea of a referendum in Scotland, which meant that there would have to be a referendum in Wales as well.
As ever, the Labour party treats Wales as Scotland's poor relation. A law-making Parliament for Scotland, but only an afterthought Assembly for Wales; tax-raising powers for Scotland, but no tax-raising powers for Wales; a referendum in Scotland with two questions, but a referendum with only one question in Wales. There will be an afterthought referendum for an afterthought Assembly. Is that the reason why Wales will lag Scotland by a week? One purports to be a Parliament; the other will be a talking shop. Why not put the Welsh referendum before the Scottish referendum? That would deal with the issue of newspaper coverage raised by the Minister and would prevent more effectively Scottish coverage interfering with the Welsh proposal, but that exposes the true intention of the Government's proposals.
The referendum was always a gamble. A yes, yes vote in Scotland depends on the speed with which the Government get to the referendum as the gap narrows week by week between the yes and the no voters. There must be no pause for thought. Debate must be curtailed, foreshortened, stifled and guillotined. A gamble that looked worth taking in Scotland suddenly looked reckless in Wales, where people voted the last time by four to one against. So the decision was taken that the referendum in Wales must be held in the wake of Scotland's momentous decision. That is not giving full and impartial information to the Welsh people—indeed, it is quite the reverse.
The Government want the Welsh referendum to be a week after the Scottish referendum to ensure that the last week of debate in Wales is framed, formed and dominated by what Ministers hope will happen in Scotland. That does not follow the precedent of the 1970s, but the devolutionists have learned since then. Too much debate before the decision and the superficial gloss of devolution fades under the light of real scrutiny.
Why not use the Scottish result to influence the Welsh vote? Successive US presidential elections, for example, have shown that the early results from the eastern states have affected behaviour in the western states still voting. The conduct of the recent accession of four new member states to the EU demonstrated the same logic—the country most certain to join, Austria, voted first, followed by Finland, Sweden and Norway. The intention was to ensure that Norway followed the results of the other applicant states.

Mr. Hain: What authoritative evidence does the hon. Gentleman have for saying that western states follow eastern states in their voting habits because they declare at different times?

Mr. Jenkin: The source material is available in the Library, and I have it here. If the Minister wants to read it, he is welcome to do so, but I shall not bore the House with it now.

Mr. Simon Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the 1980 US presidential election,


President Carter conceded on the east coast at 8 pm—four hours before the west coast closed—and that Democrats stopped working in the west coast? Scores of congressmen lost their seats because the Democrats realised that the presidential election had been lost.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for amplifying that matter. Those points and more are contained in the material that I obtained from the Library.
The reversal of amendment No. 7 is a hallmark of the less than impartial way in which Ministers are conducting this process. It proves Clement Attlee's adage that
he could not consent to … a device so alien to all our traditions as the referendum, which has only too often been the instrument of Nazism and fascism.
It is unfortunate, perhaps, that I have to quote a former Labour Prime Minister to make that point. If Ministers' ruses succeed, it will be a triumph of ministerial manipulation over real open and reasoned debate.
Apart from my name and distant antecedents, I do lack Welshness, but if I could claim to be Welsh I would feel insulted that Wales is to be treated in that way. It did not work with Norway's accession to the EU and there is no guarantee that it will work with Wales.

Mr. John Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me early in the debate. This is my first opportunity to address the House since my return at the general election, and, if you will allow me, I shall take this opportunity to thank colleagues on both sides of the House for the warm welcome that I received on my return and for their assistance in helping me to settle back into the House.
I also place on record my thanks to the people of the Vale of Glamorgan—the jewel in the Welsh crown—for returning me at the last election, following my short absence after the intervention of the overseas vote in 1992.
It is an illustration of the level of ignorance and arrogance that abound in this debate that we are even here to discuss the amendment. That it could come from the other place in this form proves to me, and, I believe, to the people of Wales, just how little the Opposition and Members of the other place who voted this through know and understand about my country, Wales. They could not have challenged the decision to separate the dates for the referendums if they had had a cursory understanding of our country, which is much smaller than Scotland, does not have the same media infrastructure and is a completely different country. That explains why the two proposals before the two countries for both the referendum and the subsequent Bill are completely different.

Mr. Ancram: If that is the case, why have only a week? The hon. Gentleman's argument suggests that one needs more time to make a distinction between the two.

Mr. Smith: A week is ample time for the people of Wales, who are very intelligent, talented, and able to make a decision. What we do not want is for the debate to be dominated in the media in the immediate run-up to the referendum by the Scottish arguments.

Mr. Gray: If Welsh people are as intelligent, able and far-sighted as the hon. Gentleman describes, surely they

could see through the discussion of the Scottish devolution question in the press that week and make up their own minds in Wales, without our necessarily having to make the votes a week apart.

Mr. Smith: We would support the fullest and most informed and open debate on this referendum. That is why we want all the arguments aired in the media in the week running up to the vote.

Mr. Grieve: When the matter was first debated in the House on Second Reading, we were assured that there would be ample time for discussing the Bill before the referendum. Then we were told that the Bill would not be published, and we would have the White Papers. Now we have them, and, effectively, we have five hours to discuss them both before Parliament goes into recess. How can that be a full discussion of the issues so that the people can make an informed choice?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is an important, contentious and serious matter. A large number of hon. Members are trying to catch my eye, and, as we know, there is a limited amount of time for debate. If interventions could be kept short and few, it would assist the flow of the debate.

Mr. Smith: I thank you for those comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am beginning to regret extending thanks to both sides for my warm welcome back.
I must tackle an important point, which makes the difference between the two debates and votes that will take place in Scotland and Wales. As I said, Wales is a different country, and it faces different problems. One problem that I hope will be discussed in the run-up to the referendum on 18 September is that of the absence of a business voice for Wales—an absence which has developed in the past 18 years.
Hon. Members talk about this debate being a threat to the unity of the United Kingdom, and of a yes vote undermining that unity. Nothing could be further from the truth. A yes vote will strengthen the bond within the United Kingdom, not merely through a devolution of political power—important and essential though that is—but through what in some respects is more important: the devolution of economic power following the concentration of the past 18 years.
That concentration undermines the fabric of the United Kingdom—the fact that 35 per cent. of the gross domestic product of this country is now produced in a small part of the United Kingdom: in London and the south-east of England. A concentration of wealth has been moving in that one direction for far too long. If we do not reverse that concentration and the spread of jobs and investment, there could be serious problems for the bonding within this great country, the United Kingdom.
One of the main reasons why there has not been a diversification and devolution of economic power and investment in Wales is the appalling business image of Wales that has developed in the United Kingdom in recent years. The majority of investors in Wales do not come from overseas, and they are not indigenous. The majority of investment in the Principality comes from the rest of the United Kingdom. Two thirds of all investment in Wales is predominantly English, and as a country we depend on it.
I am sure that hon. Members are aware from earlier debates on the general subject that Wales has done well in attracting direct foreign investment—in fact, double the United Kingdom average. That is a good record, and one to be proud of.
What hon. Members may not be aware of—it is an issue that needs to be introduced in the run-up to the referendum, and a reason why we undoubtedly need a second date—is that Wales under-performs in relation to the other regions of the United Kingdom when it comes to the share of UK investment. That partly explains why, in 1979, Wales was the highest waged economy in the UK and now it is the lowest. That would explain why, in 1979, we produced above the average GDP per capita in the United Kingdom, but now Wales has the lowest, at 85 per cent.
We have attracted direct foreign investment; we have failed to attract investment from the United Kingdom. In other words, we can attract Lucky Goldstar from Korea—the other side of the world—but we have a great deal of difficulty in attracting investment from the other side of the Severn bridge, because we do not have a business voice for Wales. We do not have a focus for getting the message across that Wales in general, and south Wales in particular, is one of the most attractive investment locations in the European Union; the majority of investors in the United Kingdom think that it is not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman considerable latitude on his return to the House, but he is an old hand, and he knows that he must speak to the terms of the amendment.

Mr. Smith: I am attempting to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by stressing the unique economic problem facing Wales that can be addressed only if we have votes on separate days. I want to make the point as clear as I can, because it causes me, as it should the people of Wales, great concern.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: The hon. Gentleman makes some powerful points, but to get all those points across to the people of Wales in one week would be rather difficult. Surely the referendums should therefore be either on the same day or, as has already been suggested, six months apart.

Mr. Smith: The people of Wales are entirely able to appreciate the point and make up their own minds on the matter.

Mr. Evans: As a Welshman, who has spent most of his life in Wales—I have been in politics for 23 years, 17 of which were in Welsh politics—I know that the Welsh people are intelligent and able. We should either have the referendums on the same day—because the Welsh people are intelligent enough to know that they are being offered something different—or sufficiently far apart to enable them to concentrate on the fact that the referendums are different.

Mr. Smith: The people of Wales are extremely talented, intelligent and able. That is why they cleared out the Tories at the last election.
We, and other regions of the United Kingdom, do not succeed in attracting our fair share of UK investment, mostly because of sheer ignorance, especially in London and the south-east of England. When asked how far south Wales was from London, more than 80 per cent. of English investors got it wrong by more than 100 miles.
When asked what were the dominant industries in south Wales—now, in 1997, not in 1937 or 1947—more than half the respondents thought that it was still dominated by coal and by metal manufacture, and was full of slag heaps and smoking chimneys. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that has impeded investment. People think that Wales, and industrial south Wales in particular, is a remote investment region in the European Union. That is stopping British investment into Wales.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case about ignorance throughout the United Kingdom of affairs in Wales. I agree that there is considerable ignorance about Scottish and Welsh affairs, and, indeed, devolution.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, although the referendums are to take place on 11 September and 18 September, it would have been much better if the Government had had the courage to wait until the people of Wales and Scotland—and, indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom—had had the chance properly to consider what devolution would really mean? To overcome the ignorance of which he spoke, should not the devolution Bills have been put before the people before they were asked to vote in a referendum?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I remind the House that interventions should be brief and to the point; they should not be small speeches.

Mr. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was not an intervention; it was indeed a speech.
I want to draw attention to perhaps the most worrying and disturbing reason why UK investors do not invest in Wales.

Mr. Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) back to the House, but I wish that he would concentrate on the amendment. We have limited time to discuss this issue, and his speech amounts to no more than a Government filibuster. I urge you to bring the hon. Gentleman to order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Chair is responsible for deciding whether hon. Members are speaking to the point, but I must tell the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Mr. Smith) that I was in the Chamber when the other Deputy Speaker asked him to speak to the amendment, since when he has conspicuously failed to do so. I should be grateful if he would now do just that.

Mr. Smith: I will indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point that I am trying to make about the amendment is that there are distinct and different arguments to be advanced in the run-up to the referendums for Scotland and Wales. That is why we most definitely need to have the votes on different days.
We do not attract our fair share of investment because of the sometimes appalling attitude towards us of English investors.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman now bring his remarks to a very prompt close?

Mr. Smith: I will indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The voice for Wales, the Welsh Assembly, could do a great deal in a short time completely to turn round the false business image of the Principality that exists in London and the south-east of England. That is why we should disregard the Lords amendment, and the people of Wales should vote resoundingly yes on 18 September, in the interests of the future jobs and prosperity of our country.

Mr. Alex Salmond: I think that it was P. G. Wodehouse who said that it was not difficult to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Scot with a grievance. Perhaps we could say that it is not difficult to tell the difference between a ray of sunshine and a Member of Parliament with an English constituency who has a grievance against Scotland and Wales. This parading of anti-Scottish and anti-Welsh prejudices will do absolutely nothing for any prospects of the revival of the Conservative party in those countries.

Mr. Gray: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Salmond: If the hon. Gentleman will sit down for a second, I will give way to him a little later. I intended to make a very brief speech, but if the Conservative party continually diverts me with a series of interventions, who knows how long I could go on?

Mr. Gray: The hon. Gentleman's point about a hatred for Scotland and Wales among my hon. Friends is entirely false. He will know, if he has studied his Dod, that most of those who are speaking in this debate—even if, like me, they represent English constituencies—are 100 per cent. Scottish. I love Scotland more than he does, if I may say so. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] As much as he does, then. On what grounds does he accuse us of hating Scotland?

Mr. Salmond: I do not try to evaluate hon. Members' love for their countries as the hon. Gentleman does. Whether he loves Scotland more than I do is a matter for debate, but in electoral terms, the people of Scotland certainly love my party more than they love his party or him personally, and his love of Scotland does not extend to trying to further his political prospects there; he obviously considers the pastures greener down south.
An interesting survey was conducted of Scottish attitudes to the Conservative party. I was not surprised to find that the majority of people in Scotland felt that the Conservative party was anti-Scottish, but I was surprised to find—this was just before the general election—that the majority of people who intended to vote Conservative thought that the Conservative party was anti-Scottish. I rest my case on that point.

Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way at such an apposite moment. Will he do all in

his power to correct the misapprehension among the Scottish people? There are no anti-Scottish Members in the House as far as I am aware. Or is it part of his party's programme to foment resentment among the Scottish people to promote his nasty nationalism?

Mr. Salmond: I have often pronounced myself one of the most anglophile of all Scottish Members. I am prepared to defend that. I have certainly forgotten more about English history than many Conservative Members have ever learnt. We present our case for Scotland in a positive way. We do not spend our time being antagonistic about other nations. That contrasts heavily with the attitude of the Conservative party.

Mr. Jenkin: No.

Mr. Salmond: At a time when a majority of Conservative voters in Scotland feel that the party is anti-Scottish, I believe that it is reasonable for me to draw that to the attention of the House. The hon. Gentleman should address himself to the remnants of the Conservative party and try to convince them that his party is not anti-Scottish, rather than direct his remarks to me.
Furthermore, at a recent Scottish Conservative conference held in the aftermath of the general election, one of the few things on which the delegates agreed was that the great difficulty that the party suffered was that it was seen as anti-Scottish. I have to say to Conservative Members gathered here that that seems to be a reality.

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has changed his tune.

Mr. Salmond: I have not. I am trying desperately not to be condescending or patronising to the hon. Gentleman, who is making it difficult for me not to be. I shall try not to patronise him.
I offer a piece of gentle advice—that the nature of the arguments and the way in which they are put by Conservative Members is not conducive to an enormous revival of the Conservative party's fortunes in Scotland and Wales. In my party political interest, I suppose that I would say, "Keep putting the arguments in the way you are doing. Keep at it. You will continue to return zero Members of Parliament in Scotland." It would be impossible under proportional representation to return zero Members of the Scottish Parliament, but if the Conservative party continues to operate in the way it is, as a party and as a front organisation for the think twice campaign, there will be a prospect of its gaining no Members of the Scottish Parliament.
I intended to address some brief remarks to the amendment before I was led astray by the serried ranks of Conservative Members. Is there an argument that one cannot have change, whether constitutional or other, on different days in different countries of the United Kingdom? There may or may not be, but it is certainly not an argument that will be put with any conviction by the Conservative party. I seem to recall that the poll tax—a huge instrument of taxation—was introduced by the Conservative party, not a week earlier in Scotland than elsewhere but a full year earlier.

Mr. Laurence Robertson: The benefit was yours.

Mr. Salmond: The benefit was ours, yes. The Conservative party will have to acknowledge that the cost


of the poll tax in administrative terms and in transitional relief was £1,000 million. If Conservative Members are worried about the cost of the Scottish Parliament, they might dwell on the fact that it would be possible to run a Scottish Parliament for half a century for the cost of one bad, undemocratic, unresponsive decision forced upon the Scottish people by the Conservative party.
Nor does a Unionist party make a good case when it argues that constitutional change must take place on the same day in different countries. According to that argument, Wales could not have joined the Union until Scotland did, and Scotland presumably could not have joined until Ireland did. It is a farcical argument. If one accepts that Scotland and Wales are nations, surely they have the right to decide, whether on one day or another. The peoples of Scotland and Wales are adult enough to make up their own independent minds, on whatever day the referendums are held.
A much more substantial argument about the referendum is why there will be two questions in Scotland. It is farcical. Why will there be no independence question on the ballot paper? It seems passing strange that, in the debate on the Lords amendments, instead of discussing and reflecting on matters of substance, we are involved in a debate of little matter.
Although I caution the Conservative party that it should not continue in the vein that it has adopted, I dare say that we have a party political interest in a parade of more prejudice in the Chamber tonight. Either through its own activities or through its front organisation, the think twice campaign, the Conservative party should not place itself irredeemably in antagonistic opposition to the peoples of Scotland and Wales.
Even within the ranks of the Conservative party, there cannot be unanimity on the wisdom of the attitude that Conservative Members portray. I know that it is difficult for Conservative Members from English constituencies, in the aftermath of an election which saw their party cleared out of the nations of Scotland and Wales, to think beyond their constituencies and their regional interests, and anticipate the reaction in Scotland and Wales to the attitude that they are striking. However, it would benefit the debate if they tried to look beyond their prejudices.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I have no difficulty in supporting my right hon. Friends on this matter, because the proposals for Scotland and Wales are totally different. I think that I was the one Scot who sat through the Welsh debate on Friday. After listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands), my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and many other colleagues, I realised yet again that the position in Wales was different.
The events of last week, study of the White Paper, the hype surrounding the White Paper, the image created by the party at Edinburgh castle and, not least, The Scotsman on Friday morning going simply overboard, confirmed my view that we are at the beginning of a motorway without exit to something indistinguishable from a separate Scottish state.
Therefore, I believe that there should be two statements in the referendum. The first should be, "I want to remain part of Britain." The second should be, "I want a Scottish

state separate from England." That is the choice, as indeed it may always have been. Any hope of an acceptable halfway house devolution solution evaporated with the decision to hold a pre-legislative referendum rather than a post-legislative one on the meaningful question, "Do you approve of the Scotland Act 1997–98, as passed by Parliament?"

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I oppose the Government's proposals today, in the sense that they seek to fix a date. I would prefer not to fix a date. In other words, I should prefer to adhere to the procedure in the original Bill. Perhaps I might briefly explain the reason for that.
Devolution in Scotland can survive only if it is fair to England. I am not at the moment arguing against devolution in Scotland or Wales. I believe that it is contrary to the interests of the people of both countries, but that is a different point. Devolution can last only if it is fair to England. I believe that, if referendums are held in September—whether on the 11th or the 18th does not matter for these purposes—there will be a debate on a false understanding of the facts in Scotland and Wales. If the thing is to last, changes cannot be contemplated in Scotland and Wales which are distinct from appropriate arrangements here in England.
If we are to have devolution in Scotland and Wales, there will be a fundamental change in the way in which we govern the United Kingdom. That could take a number of forms. It could take the form of a federal constitution, with four national Parliaments and a federal Parliament. That is one way forward, which is perfectly logical.
Another way forward would be to say of Scottish Members that there must be a fundamental diminution in their number and role at Westminster and that they right to participate in the English debates needs to be reduced, so that—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. May I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as I have reminded other hon. Members, that we are debating a narrow amendment about two separate dates for the referendums. He must address his remarks to that.

Mr. Hogg: Forgive me, but the question that I am addressing, which is in order, is whether there should be a date fixed for the Bill or whether no date is fixed, as is the case at the moment, and it is left at the discretion of the Government to fix by Order in Council.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is for the Chair to decide what is in order and what is not. I simply ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to address his remarks to the specific amendment before us.

Mr. Hogg: Forgive me, but the question that the House is considering is whether there should be a fixed date or no date. That is the question before the House at the moment. I am arguing that there should be no date, because one must look at constitutional changes and arrangements in the broad. One needs to contemplate what changes will have to be made to the entire government of the United Kingdom before the peoples of Scotland and Wales decide whether they want devolution in their respective parts of the United Kingdom.
If one insists on a date, whether it be 11 September or 18 September, it is certain that those broader proposals will not be put forward and argued. In other words, the peoples of Scotland and Wales, if they are to vote in referendums on either 11 or 18 September, will not do so in the full knowledge of the long-term consequences to the constitution of devolution in those two parts of the United Kingdom.
That is precisely why I say that we should not fix a date, so that we can set a later date, be it at the end of the year, perhaps next year, or the year after—it does not matter for these purposes—when we can give proper consideration to the consequences of devolution in Scotland and Wales.

Mr. Wigley: I am following the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument about why there should be a longer period—a much longer period, possibly, as he sees it, for a fuller debate on possible alternative solutions and the implications for the England and the United Kingdom. Would not that argument be stronger if the Conservative party had fought the general election with positive proposals for the future of Wales and Scotland, and indeed the United Kingdom, rather than arguing that a thousand-year history would come to an end, and offering a totally negative attitude towards devolution?

Mr. Hogg: That is a matter for political debate. I am now expressing my own view. I am not hostile to the principle of devolution in Scotland and Wales if that is what the people there really want. I insist to the House on the importance of the referendums being conducted according to a full knowledge and understanding of the consequences of devolution in Scotland and Wales on the overall structures of the United Kingdom.
That debate has not been opened up, and will not be started before the referendums in September. That is a powerful argument against fixing a date in September.

Mr. Hanson: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggesting that I and the other 33 Labour Members elected on 1 May should break our promise to the electorate to hold an Assembly vote within the first year of the Parliament? That is what the right hon. and learned Gentleman is asking for. His party offered to maintain the status quo, and it was overwhelmingly defeated at the election.

Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has an obligation to speak truthfully to his constituents and to the people of Wales. I am sure that he will do so, and I am not suggesting for a moment that he would not. If he agrees with me, however, that the proposals now before the House in broad form in the White Papers for Scotland and Wales cannot be the end of the story because they do not address the problem of England and fairness of treatment for it, it follows inevitably that profound changes to the way in which we will have to govern the United Kingdom will be down the track—for example, a federal structure.
We need to ventilate that argument before the referendums, so that the people of Wales and Scotland have an opportunity to assess whether in reality that is what they want. If they do, so be it—that is what will

happen—but we need to have an informed debate. That is why I am against a fixed date and in favour of an open date, in the I hope that I can persuade the Government that those referendums should be held on a later date rather than an earlier one.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I support the rejection of the Lords amendments, which have tried to insist on having the two referendums on the same day, because of the old problem, sometimes known as the "and Wales" problem.
When we discuss politics and public affairs, we normally refer to England and Wales, and Wales is always the afterthought. Until quite recently, the famous entry in "Encyclopaedia Britannica" was "for Wales, see England", and reference was always to England and Wales. When it comes to discussing devolution, one always refers to Scotland and Wales. The problem of the "and Wales" afterthought is why we need a cordon sanitaire between the dates of the Scottish referendum and the Welsh referendum.
That is also why one could not have the Welsh referendum before the Scottish referendum. That would not solve the problem, because the degree of interest in Scottish devolution even among the London media—even though, by and large, the London media are not of great relevance in Scotland—is still so great that they would discuss the Scottish referendum and devolution in preference to Welsh devolution and the Welsh referendum, even if the latter were held first. The media would simply continue to discuss Scottish devolution even after that referendum, because there would be no Welsh devolution referendum to discuss. That is the problem.
How do we guarantee a suitable concentration of interest on Welsh devolution? We can only do so by making sure that there is a period when the Scottish referendum is over, which means that we and the London media could then concentrate on Wales.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: In effect, the hon. Gentleman is repeating the arguments made by the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain)—that the people of Wales are incapable of making that decision, and that they are ignorant. According to the Under-Secretary, it was The Sun wot won it. It is an insult to the Welsh people to suggest that they cannot make that decision without being sanitised from the London media. He is making an argument for a delay of six months.

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman needs to develop a little more expertise in the affairs of Wales and Scotland before he makes contributions to such debates. Obviously he was not listening earlier.
The issue is whether any part of the United Kingdom could expect to make an informed decision without media coverage. We rely on them. We can expect more measured coverage from the BBC, the ITV stations and Channel 4. We will also get detailed coverage from The Sun and other tabloids as well the broadsheets, which are not bound by obligations to offer balanced coverage. Among them all, however, people could expect to receive reasonably informed information.
One cannot expect such coverage if the media do not discuss Welsh devolution. We have found that, when it is covered, it is only by having 100 per cent. horse manure


thrown at it, as we saw this morning in the article on page 1 of The Guardian, which was repeated word for word on page 1 of The Western Mail. Those articles implied that the Queen wants to tell the people of Wales that they will not get the real McCoy. This afternoon, however, we learned that that story was total garbage from start to finish.
Unfortunately, that is the type of coverage we get. It is not serious coverage, but we would get such coverage provided the dates of the referendums were kept apart by a reasonable period. We suggest that it should be a gap of seven days, and the Opposition argue that there should be no gap, or a gap of 14 days or 28 days. They cannot have it both ways—they must think that those referendums should be held either on the same day or on separate ones.

Mr. Evans: The same day.

Mr. Morgan: I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentleman that most of his colleagues have acted like a rabble on this issue. Sometimes they argue for the same day; sometimes they argue for a six-month separation. Indeed, that is what the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) suggested just now. Which do the Conservatives want? The official position of the Opposition Front-Bench team is the same day, but the rest of the Tories are in disarray.

Mr. Evans: We say that the people of Wales are intelligent and able, so let us hold the referendums on the same day. The people of Wales can work out the issues for themselves.

7 pm

Mr. Morgan: The hon. Gentleman is a media expert: he sells newspapers for a living. He is known as Nigel the News. As good Welshmen, we are all agreed, of course, that the Welsh are an intelligent people. We should all be singing from the same hymn sheet—singing those old Welsh hymns such as Cwm Rhibble.
The issue, however, is not whether the people of Wales are as intelligent as the European average—they are far above that average; otherwise they would not have wiped out the Tory party on 1 May. The issue concerns whether they can be expected to come to an informed decision in the referendum vote if there is not enough media coverage. Unless the two dates are separated, coverage of the Welsh referendum will not be separate from coverage of the Scottish one in the media—that is the problem.
Just how intelligent coverage of the issue is became plain when Tory peers in the other place claimed that the Welsh media would do the job, and that it achieved the same penetration in Wales as the Scottish media do in Scotland. Those Tory peers distinguished themselves by calling the national newspaper of Wales the Western Morning News—until it was pointed out that that is a newspaper in the south-west of England.
Another Opposition peer distinguished himself by saying that S4C broadcasts to north Wales in the Welsh language—until it was pointed out to him that S4C is the national Welsh language television station. These people know nothing about the Welsh media, yet they try to lecture us, representing the constituencies of Wales, on it.
In this Chamber, the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) once again failed to understand the Minister's point about the "shadow effect". The problem is that 35 per cent. of the people of Wales have better television reception from transmitters in England than from Welsh transmitters, and many have no Welsh reception at all. The same does not apply to Scotland, of course.

Mr. Garnier: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I have got him off the hook of the Welsh media on a number of occasions. The important question concerns the Government's order of priorities. Why are they trying to overturn the Lords amendment when, as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) pointed out, there are plenty of other, more important, issues to discuss?

Mr. Morgan: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not yet absorbed the lesson of the independent academic study done in 1979, which showed that Welsh newspapers are read by only 13 per cent. of the Welsh population, whereas Scottish papers are read by 90 per cent. of the Scottish population.
It is not just that the referendum legislation for the two countries is quite different; it is also the fact that the economic and media integration of Wales and England are very different from the Scottish situation. So a separation of the arguments in the media can be achieved only by two referendums held on separate days—seven days apart, under the Government proposal.

Mr. Salmond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you well know, I am all for free speech. Is it in order for the Conservative Whip to tour the Conservative Benches discouraging Conservative Members from speaking in the debate? He almost cut off my old university friend, the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), in full flow.
Self-determination for Scotland, self-determination for Wales—but is it not in order to allow Tory Members self-determination?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The order in which hon. Members speak, and whether they choose to speak at all, are not matters for the Chair.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: The Conservatives are trying to raise to a point of principle the idea that two referendums must not be held a week apart. They seem to be a new form of Seventh Day Adventists. If the Almighty managed to create the world in seven days, the Welsh electorate should be able to absorb the necessary arguments in seven days. It is rubbish to maintain that the referendums can be held on the same day, although miles apart, but not a week apart.
Another suggestion is that the Government are cunningly following a plot devised by the European Union—successive voting. That great plot clearly did not work for the EU, in that Norway did not vote the right way. So if it is a plot, it is not a very clever one.
It is complete rubbish to say that adequate information was provided before the last referendum, as anyone who took part in it—I doubt whether many Conservative Members did—will testify. There was a serious lack of information, and that had an adverse effect on the result.
The Conservatives have also pooh-poohed the idea of the Government putting out a piece of paper summarising the White Paper. The Conservatives say that that is propaganda and a wicked misuse of public funds. I remind them that the Conservative Government spent a great deal of public money on propaganda in favour of the school boards, in favour of opting out—they hoped in vain that lots of Scottish schools would go for it—and in favour of local government reorganisation. There is thus a long history of Governments setting out information for the benefit of the citizen. Thereafter it is up to the yes and no campaigns to produce their own propaganda.
The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who appears to have gone, argues that the exercise will lead inevitably to independence. I see no example in history of an intelligent form of devolution leading to independence. Indeed, there are many examples to the contrary. A federal system can lead to a country staying together which would not otherwise have done so. That will happen with this form of devolution.

Miss Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Many of us have been waiting with great patience to speak on the Lords amendment. You have already said that Members should direct their remarks to the amendment. Would you care to repeat that ruling?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those matters can be safely left to the Chair.

Mr. Gorrie: I am rebutting, one by one, arguments advanced in this debate.
Another Conservative argument is that we should do nothing until it becomes clear what should happen throughout the United Kingdom. One of the great merits of the Government's proposals for Scotland and Wales is that they will cause the English to think more carefully about how they want England to be run. That will be a great step forward. We should support the Government, because the arguments against holding the referendums seven days apart are spurious.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I wholly agree with the excellent arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). The media attention that Wales would attract is certainly a key issue. There is certainly a Wales and England question, which my hon. Friend set out cogently.
I wholly reject the argument that we need more information. To those who have been slumbering, I would point out that there has been a general debate going on since the early 1970s and beyond in Wales and Scotland about the broad issue of devolution. The public will not be moved to vote either yes or no by the details of the Bill. They will come to a general view as to whether they believe that there should be an Assembly. The subsections of the Bill will be wholly irrelevant. If we are to have an intelligent and separate decision, as we suggest, we must proceed broadly along the lines that the Government want.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: There is a much more fundamental question, and perhaps the

hon. Gentleman will answer it. Given that the possible outcomes of both referendums will be to alter dramatically and irrevocably both the powers and the constitution of the United Kingdom House of Commons, how can it be justified that the English should be altogether excluded from the referendums?

Mr. Anderson: The hon. Gentleman set out that case at great length and with great cogency during the previous debate. We can raise as many bogeys as we will about fundamental change in the UK constitution as a whole, fragmentation and the slippery slope to the break-up of the United Kingdom, but I believe that our people are far too mature to fall for those bogeys.
Let me end by saying, yes, there are powerful arguments of substance, but there is also the question of procedure. On an issue relating to elections, the manner in which elections should be held and the timing of elections, the other place should exercise a certain restraint. We should not put particular weight on the views of the other place on matters of electoral politics. By definition, its Members are not themselves subject to elections, so we should give little weight to what they have to say. We should proceed as we were minded to proceed and reject what the other place has put forward. Let the people of Wales have what we want—our own referendum, unaffected by that in Scotland, on which we can have our own debate. Let us reject the amendment.

Mr. Hain: I shall reply briefly to the debate and take up especially the points made by the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), whom I welcome to the Dispatch Box. I shall go further and welcome him to come into Wales and campaign for the no vote—indeed, I am tempted to offer him his fare on the strength of his contribution this evening. The image presents itself of Essex boy—or perhaps I should say Essex boyo—invading Wales and taking on the people of Blaenau Gwent and the Rhondda. I invite him to come to the Neath valley—to Cwmllynfell or Ystalafera—to parade his wares around the doorsteps and press his case for a no vote. He would get a swift response, however, because the people of Wales are supporting Labour's campaign for a yes vote.
I was fascinated by one of the hon. Gentleman's slips of the tongue, when he said that he was not interested in helping the no campaign. That really shows that the Tories are on the run. Last Sunday, his leader pulled the rug from underneath the entire Conservative opposition, by saying that he virtually conceded that the Government would win the yes vote in Wales and Scotland and that he would not seek to reverse the decision. The right hon. Gentleman effectively conceded the case for devolution in Scotland and Wales, and now the hon. Member for North Essex says that he is not interested in helping the no campaign.
Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman tried to ride two horses at the same time, by saying both that he was opposed to the Government's proposals for Scotland and that he wanted those for Wales to be the same. In other words, he wanted a no vote in Wales because there were no tax-raising powers in the proposals for a Welsh Assembly. He really should clear his lines and decide what his opposition is based on. The hon. Gentleman also asked why Wales was not going first; I shall tell him. Quite simply, Wales is not going first because Scotland's


school holidays are earlier than those of Wales and we want the people of Scotland and Wales to have the opportunity when they come back from their holidays to hear the arguments on both sides of the case and then to make up their mind fairly and freely.
The hon. Gentleman then made the extraordinary pronouncement on behalf of the Front-Bench spokesmen and officially on behalf of the Conservative party that referendums were an instrument of Nazism and fascism. Is he really saying that? We should be told. Is the Conservative party now saying that it will never support referendums in Britain because they are instruments of Nazism and fascism? That is the real face of the Tory party—denying the right of the people of Wales and Scotland to be consulted about our proposals for a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) also made a revealing slip, when he said that he might concede that the referendum should happen next year, or the year after, or the year after that—disappearing over the horizon. Why does he say that? Because he does not want a referendum and because he is afraid of the result whereby the referendum will give an overwhelming mandate for our proposals for a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly.
7.15 pm
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is also inviting the Government to do something that the previous Government did just about every other week they ruled, which is break our promises to the electorate. We promised that the people of Wales and Scotland would be offered a Welsh Assembly and a Scottish Parliament after a referendum in our first year of office. We are fulfilling our election promises in that respect, as we are doing in so many other areas of policy.
In conclusion, the Conservatives are really frightened of democracy. They are frightened of putting the matter to the people's vote in the referendums. I am not surprised that they are frightened of democracy, because they were wiped out in terms of parliamentary representation in Scotland and Wales. I am confident that we shall win the referendums in Scotland and Wales, and when we have done so, not only shall we have delivered democracy to Scotland and Wales, but we shall have beaten the Conservatives yet again.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 349, Noes 134.

Division No. 75]
[7.17 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Barnes, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Barron, Kevin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Battle, John


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Ashton, Joe
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bennett, Andrew F


Atkins, Charlotte
Benton, Joe


Baker, Norman
Berry, Roger


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Best, Harold


Banks, Tony
Betts, Clive





Blears, Ms Hazel
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Boateng, Paul
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ellman, Ms Louise


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ennis, Jeff


Bradshaw, Ben
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brake, Thomas
Fearn Ronnie


Breed, Colin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Burnett, John
Follett, Barbara


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Butler, Christine
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Byers, Stephen
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gibson, Dr Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caplin, Ivor
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caton, Martin
Godsiff, Roger


Cawsey, Ian
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gorrie, Donald


Church, Ms Judith
Grant, Bernie


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clelland, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clwyd, Ann
Hancock, Mike


Coaker, Vernon
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harris, Dr Evan


Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)
Harvey, Nick


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cooper, Yvette
Healey, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Corston, Ms Jean
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cox, Tom
Heppell, John


Cranston, Ross
Hesford, Stephen


Crausby, David
Hill, Keith


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hinchliffe, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)



Howells, Dr Kim


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hutton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Ingram, Adam


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Denham, John
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jamieson, David


Dismore, Andrew
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Dobbin, Jim
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Donaldson, Jeffrey



Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Drew, David



Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)






Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pearson, Ian


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pendry, Tom


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Perham, Ms Linda


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Pickthall, Colin


Keetch, Paul
Pike, Peter L


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Plaskitt, James


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pond, Chris


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pound, Stephen


Kirkwood, Archy
Powell, Sir Raymond


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lepper, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Leslie, Christopher
Prosser, Gwyn


Levitt, Tom
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Quinn, Lawrie


Linton, Martin
Rammell, Bill


Livingstone, Ken
Rapson, Syd


Livsey, Richard
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lock, David



Love, Andrew
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Jeff


McCabe, Stephen
Rooney, Terry


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum
Ruane, Chris


McDonnell, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McFall, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McKenna, Ms Rosemary
Salmond, Alex


McLeish, Henry
Salter, Martin


Maclennan, Robert
Sanders, Adrian


McNulty, Tony
Savidge, Malcolm


MacShane, Denis
Sawford, Phil


McWalter, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Shaw, Jonathan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Mallaber, Judy
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marek, Dr John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Singh, Marsha


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Milburn, Alan
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mitchell, Austin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moffatt, Laura
Stevenson, George


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moore, Michael
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stringer, Graham


Morley, Elliot
Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stunell, Andrew


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mountford, Kali
Swinney, John


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Oaten, Mark
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Tipping, Paddy


O'Hara, Edward
Todd, Mark


Olner, Bill
Touhig, Don





Trickett, Jon
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Truswell, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)
Willis, Phil


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Winnick, David


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Tyler, Paul
Wise, Audrey


Vaz, Keith
Wood, Mike


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wray, James


Wallace, James
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)



Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wyatt, Derek


Watts, David



Webb, Professor Steve
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Graham Allen and


White, Brian
Mr. Greg Pope.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 1 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 1, line 6, after "and" insert "income".

Mr. McLeish: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 15 and 16 and the Government motions to disagree thereto.

Mr. McLeish: The people of Scotland will be asked whether they agree that there should be a Scottish Parliament and whether it should have tax-varying powers. The amendment would require specific reference to income tax-varying powers.
The key to this is to understand what the people of Scotland are asked to agree with. It is not some vague notion of an independent Scotland or some never-never promise of better things to come from the Conservative party; they will be asked whether they agree with the Government's proposals, and it says so on the ballot papers.
The Government have set out their proposals in the White Paper "Scotland's Parliament", published last Thursday. Chapter 7 sets out the financial arrangements for the Scottish Parliament, including the tax-varying power. Opposition Members are no doubt familiar with it. It says:
Subject to the outcome of the proposed referendum on this issue the Scottish Parliament will be given a power to vary tax.
The Government propose that the tax varying power should operate on income tax".
It is crystal clear that the tax-varying power on which the referendum asks the people of Scotland to give their views is the power to vary income tax. The chapter describes in detail how the system would operate, the amount by which tax could be varied, who would be liable to pay it and what would happen in the event of the UK income tax structure changing.
We have consistently argued that the questions to be put to the people should be at the level of principle, backed up by the detail contained in the White Paper. If we are to add the word "income", why not also include the 3p in the pound limit or a definition of who should pay the tax? We could keep adding qualifications until the questions on the ballot papers were half a page long. Similarly, we shall not ask on the ballot papers whether a Scottish Parliament should have powers over the health service in Scotland or over any other matters set out in the White Paper.
I accept that a balance must be struck between keeping the questions simple and giving voters enough details so that they clearly know what they are voting for.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Will the Minister look behind him and comment?

Mr. McLeish: Such a question does not require an answer. In any case, I should not like to dignify it.

Mr. Dalyell: Quality always makes up for numbers.

Mr. McLeish: I never have a problem with my hon. Friend's interventions. This evening, a completely fatuous amendment has been debated for a very long time because Conservative Members have not wanted to debate matters of substance.

Mr. James Wallace: I understand that the Government's proposals have been made available to the electorate in a shortened form. Can the Minister tell the House the extent of the detail on the tax proposals and when he expects those will go through letter boxes?

Mr. McLeish: At this stage, I am afraid that I cannot give the response required, but I shall write and confirm those details.
We believe that our original wording is right. Tax-varying powers are a sufficiently important aspect of the Parliament's powers to warrant a separate question, but it is not necessary to specify every aspect of the powers in the questions. That is done by the White Paper. To add the word "income" would create a false sense of precision. The referendum in Scotland will seek consent for the Government's proposals for a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers. The people of Scotland understand well enough what they are asked without the amendment.

Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. McLeish: I shall not give way at this point, but I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a minute.
It is important in this brief debate to look at schedule 1 to the original Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Bill to capture the fact that the questions must be seen in the context of the White Paper. I draw Opposition Members' attention to page 23 of the White Paper, from paragraph 7.11 onwards, which deals with tax-varying powers. Paragraph 7.12 says:
The Government propose that the tax varying power should operate on income tax, because it is broadly based and easy to administer. Income tax is relatively simple and easy to understand and has none of the difficulties associated with the other major tax bases: different rates of VAT on different sides of the border would cause practical problems and there would be specific difficulties with EU rules; corporation tax would place an unreasonable burden on companies operating in Scotland; National Insurance is inappropriate because of its direct link with the social security system; and council tax and non-domestic rates would over-burden the local government finance system and undermine the accountability of local government to its electorate.
I submit—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) should sometimes think before he opens his mouth. He should know that what we call


"non-domestic rates" are business rates in Scotland. A trip up north may make him more familiar with the language that I am trying to use as part of this wider educational exercise this evening.
I submit that the questions on the ballot paper are linked to the White Paper. Naturally, the White Paper spells out in detail what we intend and do not intend. Referring back to the intervention by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), an objective summary will go to every household in Scotland and will cover his point.

Miss McIntosh: On the educational exercise, will the Minister inform the Scots of the tax implications if they lose the 19 per cent. advantage in public sector expenditure that they currently enjoy? Will that be put to the Scots in the referendum campaign? Income tax will have to increase substantially if they lose that tax advantage from the UK.

Mr. McLeish: The education issue is important. When we start to link the tax-varying power with the Barnett formula and the other assigned budget implications, a full discussion and debate on the White Paper are required, as well as an insight into the debate taking place in the Scottish press on the tax-varying power.
The crucial point is that no one will put a cross on the ballot paper on 11 September without knowing in detail the implications of the Government's policies. We think that that is right and it is what the Scottish people want. On 11 September, they will be able to exercise a choice.

Mr. Dalyell: My hon. Friend refers to an objective summary. Who is to decide whether it is objective? What is objective in the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) and in my view may be two entirely different things.

Mr. McLeish: Without getting lost in the tautology or the semantics of a definition of objectivity, I believe that we are trying to summarise the key elements of a substantial and well-received White Paper to ensure that, when people vote, they have the benefit of that exercise and the objectivity that we could bring to it.
I recognise the cynicism of those on the Conservative Opposition Benches; old habits die hard. We want to make certain that people understand what they are voting about. People must be able to choose between options. They will have a chance to say yes or no. That is an important element of the democracy that we are trying to bring to the referendum.

Mr. John Swinney: Will the opportunity be taken in that objective exercise to present information that would knock aside the fallacy produced by the Conservatives that Scotland is subsidised, and set out some of the arguments advanced by the Treasury before the last general election, which showed that since 1979 Scotland had generated a budget surplus of £27 billion to the United Kingdom?

Mr. McLeish: I will not be drawn down that road so late in an evening. Suffice it to say that the hon. Gentleman's party will be part of a yes, yes campaign in

Scotland. It is important to note that the Liberal Democrats will be involved in a yes, yes campaign north of the border. The Labour party will be involved in a yes, yes campaign. It is conspicuous that the Conservative party will not be represented. The think twice campaign—the no, no campaign—is merely a front, not for the Conservative voters of Scotland but for the out-of-touch Conservative leadership in the House, as has been ably demonstrated this evening by Conservative Front Benchers.
I have no difficulty in welcoming the fact that we will have a referendum. It is crucial that there are questions on the Parliament and on the tax-varying powers. We have conclusively linked the questions on the ballot paper to the White Paper, which contains substantial comment on the tax and answers the questions involved. I hope that the House will reject Lords amendment No.2.

Mr. Michael Ancram: Once again, we have heard from the Minister a mixture of condescension and bluster. The one thing that we never get from him is an answer. I hope that he begins to learn that he is now a Minister. He should start behaving like a Minister, not like a member of the Opposition. He holds an extremely important ministry in the Scottish Office and he should be worthy of it. What we have heard from him tonight and in previous debates has been entirely unsatisfactory.
The Minister said something extraordinary. He said that the position was clear—it is all about income tax; there are no other taxes. He went on to say that the amendment would create a false sense of precision. What on earth does that mean? The one thing that the people of Scotland need before they vote in a referendum is a sense of precision.
At present, there is no sense of precision. If the amendment were allowed to stand, there would be the precision that the only tax that could be varied would be income tax. I know, as do my hon. Friends, why the Minister is not prepared to allow a false sense of precision. It would be false, because not only income tax is being spoken about.
Failure to accept the amendment confirms that there is a can of tax worms lying beneath the surface of the document, and the Minister hopes that when the people of Scotland find that out after the referendum, it will be too late. It is sleight of hand to pretend that the reference is only to income tax. There are back-of-the-hand taxes, indirect taxes and a vicarious tax.
I realise that the Minister considers it essential to keep that from the Scottish people before 11 September. I shall ask him one or two questions to demonstrate why I hold that view. If income tax is the only tax concerned, why will he not accept that description, which makes the position clear?
The Secretary of State said in his statement last Thursday:
Subject to the outcome of the referendum, the Scottish Parliament will be given power to increase or decrease the basic rate of income tax set by the UK Parliament by up to 3p.
Fair enough. He went on to say:
The Parliament will have a guaranteed right to raise or to forgo up to £450 million—index-linked—irrespective of changes in the UK income tax structure."—[Official Report, 24 July 1997; Vol. 298, c. 1043.]


What happens—this is the key question—if there is a change in the bands, which is not declared by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or a change in taxable income, as happens at boom times and at times of recession, when 3p would raise more or less than £450 million? If it raises less, from where will the extra money come to maintain the guarantee that a Scottish Parliament could raise up to £450 million, as the Secretary of State said?
If the limit is 3p in the pound and that 3p will not get £450 million, which is guaranteed, the money will come from somewhere else—not income tax. That is why the Minister is not prepared to have that descriptor in the Bill.
I shall ask the Minister straight and hope that, for once, he will answer straight: under the proposals, would the Scottish Parliament be able to raise new taxes—for example, by the introduction of a property tax, as is rumoured in some of the Scottish papers, or some other form of indirect taxation? Will the Minister categorically say yes or no?

Mr. McLeish: The answer is no. The Parliament will have no powers to do that.

Mr. Ancram: We move on, then, to the next question. Does the White Paper's empowerment of a Scottish Parliament with control of local government expenditure, non-domestic rates and other local taxation allow restructuring of those forms of local taxation, or altering of the amounts that go to local government for those?
Would it be possible for a Scottish Parliament to decide to retain some of the revenue support grant to pay for its own programmes, possibly to make up for the shortfall in the £450 million, knowing that the effect would be to force councils to put up council taxes to meet it? If that power exists, does the Minister agree that that may not be a direct form of taxation, but that it is a back-door form of taxation? Would the Scottish Parliament be able to do that, or would something prevent it?
My hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) mentioned business rates or non-domestic rates. Is it within the power of the Scottish Parliament to restructure non-domestic rates in such a way that more taxation is borne by businesses in Scotland? In effect, the Parliament will have found a back-door means of raising revenue.

Mr. Hogg: As he is posing questions to the Minister, I ask my right hon. Friend to draw the Minister's attention to paragraph 7.26 on page 25 of the White Paper, which states:
The Scottish Parliament will be responsible for determining the form of local taxation … It will therefore be able to alter the form of the council tax, or replace it if it so decides.
That is a reference to the Scottish Parliament's power to introduce a variety of local taxes to replace the council tax. Unless we limit the schedule in the manner proposed in the other place, it could be treated as an authority for doing that.

Mr. Ancram: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for finding yet another indication in the White Paper that the Minister's initial assertion—that

income tax is the only tax-varying power available to the Scottish Parliament—is incorrect. I hope that the Minister will face that fact.
Will the Minister also confirm whether the power to alter or restructure local government taxation would allow for the introduction of a local sales tax, for instance? Would that then allow a Scottish Parliament to hold back some of the non-domestic rates or revenue support grant to finance—again, through the back door—its own programmes in a way that is not possible through income tax? Will the Minister also explain what provision his income tax calculations make for the variations between pensioners—who apparently will have to pay income tax on their pensions in Scotland—and those who have savings or dividends and are not pensioners? What provision has been made to meet the variations that that could cause in the tax base?
In all seriousness, I urge the Minister to make a clear statement tonight. The Scottish people are already concerned about the prospect of having higher taxes than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. They already fear the disadvantage that they would experience in terms of business competitiveness and living standards. The Minister may disdainfully accuse us of not representing Scottish constituencies, but I have on-going Scottish connections and I visit Scotland. I know that people in Scotland fear the imposition of 3p on income tax—and their fear that there is a can of tax worms waiting to be opened is even greater. Everything that I have said tonight suggests that there is such a can of worms.
The Minister could calm the fear that other taxes are hidden within the foliage of the White Paper by accepting this simple amendment. If the Minister persists in rejecting the amendment, there can be only one interpretation, and it will strike fear in the hearts of Scottish taxpayers, whether direct or indirect. New taxes are the only possible explanation. Conservative Members are appalled by the crass proposition to have variable income taxation within the United Kingdom. We believe that that will work only to the disadvantage of Scotland—both businesses and individuals. We are even more appalled by the Government's covert agenda for further taxes.
The tartan tax is a body blow. The existence of a collection of clan tartan taxes, each more invidious than the other, would amount to a horrifying deception of the people of Scotland. We need to know what those taxes are. The only honourable way in which the Minister can deny the existence of such taxes is by withdrawing his disagreement with the Lords amendment and by clarifying that income tax will be the only tool available to the Scottish Parliament. If he does not take that opportunity tonight, we shall ensure that the people of Scotland are made aware of the can of tax worms that lies within the White Paper. We shall ensure that the canny people of Scotland—who are canny in every sense of the word—are not taken in easily by the deception perpetrated by the White Paper.

Mr. Dalyell: Leaving the worms metaphor aside, the measure is a Pandora's box of unintended consequences.
First, there is the "3 per cent. question". If more and more people, under Government policy, are removed entirely from tax liability, the burden of the 3 per cent. rate will be borne by a reducing percentage of the


population. The Scottish Parliament's spending plans would then be increasingly dependent upon decisions about tax rates taken in Westminster, over which it would have no control.
Secondly, there is the "who pays question". Will everyone domiciled in Scotland be affected? What are the consequences for Inland Revenue? Will tax officers at Bootle, Shipley, London and elsewhere have to sort out Scots tax from English tax, and what will be the costs of so doing? Is it feasible in a single United Kingdom administrative and fiscal region to have different tax rates applying to the earnings or investment incomes of different citizens according to where they live or work in the United Kingdom?
Thirdly, there is the "peripatetic question". Will there be a wholly arbitrary exemption for companies? What will be done about peripatetic business men—or Members of Parliament, for that matter—who spend more than half the year outside Scotland? We might not be caught by the residency rule but, if we escaped, one can imagine the howls of outrage.
Fourthly, what about English people who are on "temporary secondment" to Scotland for six months? Will they be treated as being resident for a whole tax year, and therefore subject to higher Scottish income tax?
Fifthly, there is then the "question of tax varying". Assuming that the Barnett formula will be retained, what will be the consequences for the financial arrangements between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom if the Scots decide to increase income tax by 3p in the pound? Will the United Kingdom Government be expected to put the same amount into Scotland as though the income tax were the same as in England and Wales? If the Scots decided to cut taxes, would English taxpayers be expected to make up the difference?
Sixthly, I have alluded to the "Chirnside question" before. I must save time. It raises the same issues as the Boston tea party.
Seventhly, there is also the question of tax investment. If devolution leads to a higher-cost economy in Scotland, we must make decisions that take account of that fact. Firms such as Scottish and Newcastle would be deeply affected by this. Whatever one thinks about the management of such firms, the fact is that they employ many of our constituents. If there is a choice to be made between investing in the north or just south of the border, that will become a factor. We are not talking about taking operations away from Scotland; the issue is one of new investment in Scotland and is mixed up with the problems of rotating staff between Scotland and England.
Eighthly, there is also the "company question". Will there be a wholly arbitrary exemption for companies? What are the implications of having two fiscal regimes within one economy? The effect of a uniquely Scottish tax would be serious. Mutual and life assurance companies are concerned that any additional Scottish tax could result in clients moving to English companies for fear of incurring extra taxation. If tax levels in Scotland were made higher and business regulations different on either side of an artificial border, the extra costs and hassle would drive enterprising Scots investment and jobs to the bigger markets and wider opportunities south of the border.
Ninethly, there is the very important "pensions question". Pensions are taxed as income, like wages and salaries. Does Scotland want a system that gives pensioners a financial incentive to retire to England? I have spent eight consecutive years considering Finance Bills. Anyone who has been in Committee Room 10 night after night will know that they are vital questions that must be answered pretty quickly.

Mr. James Wallace: Hon. Members may recall that I made it perfectly clear on Second Reading and in Committee that the Liberal Democrats were sceptical of, and opposed, the second question. However, the House voted for it, and we must consider the consequences of deciding the precise wording. Perhaps it does not matter over much, as I think that the Government have the balance of the argument. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) pointed out, at the prompting of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), that the Scottish Parliament could alter or replace the form of council tax and could devolve control of non-domestic rates to councils. That would be a tax-varying power in addition to its income tax power.
With regard to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), it is made perfectly clear in the White Paper that the Government believe that income from dividends and savings should remain exempt from any income tax variation, so there would not be the kind of concerns that were being raised. The fact that there will be differences shows that, if one simply puts income tax on the ballot paper, it would give a misleading impression. People might think that all who are personally liable for income tax would be subject to the variation, whereas in fact only part of a person's income tax liability would be subject to the variation.

8 pm

Mr. Hogg: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on becoming a learned Gentleman. If the Government really mean to limit the question to income tax, why should not the Bill say so? Surely the meaning of a Bill should be clear on its face. I do not understand why, if it is the Government's intention that the question be limited to income tax, the Bill should not say just that.

Mr. Wallace: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words.
I think that I said that the Scottish Parliament will have the power to vary local taxation. The power to vary income tax is the power to vary not the whole of income tax, but only one part of it. Part—income from dividends—will be excluded. Therefore, it could potentially be misleading. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it should be on the face of the Bill. We are talking about a ballot paper that will refer to the Government's proposals. I have already questioned the Minister about how far the abbreviated objective form of his proposals will go. If he heard the House today with regard to the tax-varying powers, he will have understood from the mood of the House that it must be full and complete. If that is what people are being asked to vote upon, it is important that, on that specific point, they are given a considerable amount of information.
I regret that the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) has left the Chamber. I did not mean to be ungallant towards her. She referred to an education


process, but her very question betrayed the fact that her understanding of the Government's proposals which will be put in the referendum was limited, and that is why the education process is needed. She said that the Scottish people would have to face up to the fact that they would lose some expenditure advantage and that income tax rates would rise enormously. For a start, the White Paper makes it clear that the Barnett formula has been retained. It also puts a limit on the powers of the Scottish Parliament to vary taxation. Therefore, the very premises of her question were wrong. That is why she should acquaint herself with the terms of the White Paper.

Mrs. Laing: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so gallantly. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) not being here, may I point out that the information that she was using came not from political sources but from the Scottish Law Society, which is a very fine body and well able to interpret what it sees in a White Paper? The confusion that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted would not exist if the Prime Minister had kept his promise to publish the Bill before the referendum.

Mr. Wallace: I think that my interpretation of the White Paper is better than that of the Law Society of Scotland, if that is what the Law Society of Scotland has said. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that when he replies to the debate.

Dr. Liam Fox: Is not what the hon. Gentleman is describing the essential fraud of the second question, which is that, even if the second question is rejected by voters, any Scottish Parliament would still have tax-varying and raising powers?

Mr. Wallace: Inasmuch as it has powers with regard to local government taxation, the answer is yes. However, it ill becomes the architect of the poll tax to make such a point. The very man who stood at the Dispatch Box tonight and said how appalling it would be for Scotland to be out of line with the rest of the United Kingdom was the very man who imposed the poll tax upon Scotland a year ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom.
Let me keep this as simple as I can. The White Paper is there. A shortened version will be presented to the Scottish people. Let the Scottish people decide. I trust that they will decide yes.

Mr. John McAllion: I intervene only briefly. I have to be brief anyway, given the guillotine. So far in this debate, for the past three hours, the only Scottish Back Bencher who has spoken has been my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I rise in part just to make it clear to the House that my hon. Friend does not represent the views of Labour Back Benchers. In fact, he is a bit of a loner in terms of his views on a Scottish Parliament.
I sometimes wonder whether my hon. Friend and I stood on the same election manifesto at the recent general election when we were committed to holding a two-question referendum. I am committed to a Scottish Parliament with tax-varying powers and I am here to argue for the manifesto on which both of us were elected. I only wish that he were here to do precisely that as well.
As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) said, it is the height of hypocrisy for Tory Members to come here and worry about back-handed,

back-door taxes being imposed on the people of Scotland. During the past five to 10 years, Tory Governments have continually cut revenue support to local councils, forcing them to increase council tax as a back-door method of taxation. For the right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) to accuse the Labour Government of trying to do that is unbelievable hypocrisy, particularly coming from the very man who argued that Scotland should pay higher taxes than anywhere in the United Kingdom when he introduced the poll tax legislation a year in advance of it being applied anywhere else in the United Kingdom. He did not worry about Scots paying higher taxes at that time.

Mr. Hogg: rose—

Mr. McAllion: I am not giving way. There is no time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made several long speeches tonight and the Scottish people will be delighted if he has to button his lip for a change.
Earlier tonight, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow was complaining about the effect of the tax-varying powers on local government in Scotland. He complained about the unified business rate. He referred to the negative impact of the Scottish Parliament having control of the unified business rate on Scottish businesses in particular. I am a personal friend of my hon. Friend, but I must ask him in all sincerity whether he has any conception of how arrogant is that argument. He is saying that only this Parliament can possibly get it right when it comes to business taxes in Scotland; that any other Parliament elected by the Scottish people would, by definition, be inferior to this Parliament; that it could not come to the right decision about how the business rate should be applied in Scotland or about whether the council tax or a local income tax was the way in which to finance local government services. He is saying that we in Westminster are so superior that other Parliaments could not possibly get it right when we always get it right.
Any hon. Member who has been here for the past 10 or 20 years knows how many local government Bills have been forced through the House, almost every one of them destroying one aspect or another of local government; almost every one of them getting it wrong in one way or another.
I, as a Scot, would be delighted if control over local government finance were transferred back to Scotland and decided on by elected representatives of the Scottish people who live in Scotland all the time, who are much closer to Scottish businesses and who understand the Scottish dimension much more than people in this Chamber ever can.
My hon. Friend should start to realise that Scotland is a nation with national rights, which is every bit as good as any other part of the United Kingdom and can come to decisions that are in the interests of the Scottish people. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Devizes had changed his views and joined us on the Labour Benches, he would still represent a English constituency rather than one in Scotland. His views will not be tolerated in Scotland. That is why he had to go to Devizes. The Edinburgh people threw him out a long time ago and they were right to do so.
The reality is that all the changes proposed by the Labour Government, both in terms of varying the rate of income tax and giving control over the finance of local


government to Scotland, are well known to the Scottish people. The Scottish Constitutional Convention has been debating those issues for six years. It has widely publicised its views. There has been a huge debate in Scotland. Everyone in Scotland knows what the powers of a Scottish Parliament will be. They are in the White Paper that was published only last week. There will be a debate between now and the referendum, but everyone knows the kind of powers that will be given to the Scottish Parliament. It is hokum and bogus for the Opposition to—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Supplemental Allocation of Time Order, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the said Order.

The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 131.

Division No. 75]
[7.17 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Barnes, Harry


Ainger, Nick
Barron, Kevin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Battle, John


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Beard, Nigel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Beith, Rt Hon A J


Ashton, Joe
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bennett, Andrew F


Atkins, Charlotte
Benton, Joe


Baker, Norman
Berry, Roger


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Best, Harold


Banks, Tony
Betts, Clive





Blears, Ms Hazel
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blizzard, Bob
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Boateng, Paul
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Borrow, David
Edwards, Huw


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ellman, Ms Louise


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Ennis, Jeff


Bradshaw, Ben
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Brake, Thomas
Fearn Ronnie


Breed, Colin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Flint, Caroline


Burden, Richard
Flynn, Paul


Burnett, John
Follett, Barbara


Burstow, Paul
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Butler, Christine
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Byers, Stephen
Foster, Michael John (Worcester)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Fyfe, Maria


Caborn, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gibson, Dr Ian


Canavan, Dennis
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caplin, Ivor
Godman, Dr Norman A


Caton, Martin
Godsiff, Roger


Cawsey, Ian
Golding, Mrs Llin


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Chisholm, Malcolm
Gorrie, Donald


Church, Ms Judith
Grant, Bernie


Clapham, Michael
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)



Grocott, Bruce


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clelland, David
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clwyd, Ann
Hancock, Mike


Coaker, Vernon
Hanson, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Harris, Dr Evan


Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)
Harvey, Nick


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cooper, Yvette
Healey, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Corston, Ms Jean
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cousins, Jim
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Cox, Tom
Heppell, John


Cranston, Ross
Hesford, Stephen


Crausby, David
Hill, Keith


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hinchliffe, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)
Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin


Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)



Howells, Dr Kim


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hurst, Alan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hutton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Ingram, Adam


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Denham, John
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dewar, Rt Hon Donald
Jamieson, David


Dismore, Andrew
Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)


Dobbin, Jim
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Donaldson, Jeffrey



Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Doran, Frank
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)


Drew, David



Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)






Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Öpik, Lembit


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jowell, Ms Tessa
Pearson, Ian


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pendry, Tom


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Perham, Ms Linda


Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)
Pickthall, Colin


Keetch, Paul
Pike, Peter L


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Plaskitt, James


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pond, Chris


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pound, Stephen


Kirkwood, Archy
Powell, Sir Raymond


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lepper, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Leslie, Christopher
Prosser, Gwyn


Levitt, Tom
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Quinn, Lawrie


Linton, Martin
Rammell, Bill


Livingstone, Ken
Rapson, Syd


Livsey, Richard
Raynsford, Nick


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lock, David



Love, Andrew
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McAllion, John
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Jeff


McCabe, Stephen
Rooney, Terry


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)
Rowlands, Ted


Macdonald, Calum
Ruane, Chris


McDonnell, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McFall, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McKenna, Ms Rosemary
Salmond, Alex


McLeish, Henry
Salter, Martin


Maclennan, Robert
Sanders, Adrian


McNulty, Tony
Savidge, Malcolm


MacShane, Denis
Sawford, Phil


McWalter, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Shaw, Jonathan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sheerman, Barry


Mallaber, Judy
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Marek, Dr John
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Singh, Marsha


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michael, Alun
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Milburn, Alan
Spellar, John


Miller, Andrew
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mitchell, Austin
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Moffatt, Laura
Stevenson, George


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moore, Michael
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)
Stringer, Graham


Morley, Elliot
Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stunell, Andrew


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mountford, Kali
Swinney, John


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mudie, George



Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Oaten, Mark
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Timms, Stephen


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Tipping, Paddy


O'Hara, Edward
Todd, Mark


Olner, Bill
Touhig, Don





Trickett, Jon
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Truswell, Paul
Wigley, Dafydd


Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)
Willis, Phil


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Winnick, David


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Tyler, Paul
Wise, Audrey


Vaz, Keith
Wood, Mike


Vis, Dr Rudi
Wray, James


Wallace, James
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)



Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ward, Ms Claire
Wyatt, Derek


Watts, David



Webb, Professor Steve
Tellers for the Ayes:


Welsh, Andrew
Mr. Graham Allen and


White, Brian
Mr. Greg Pope.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Amess, David
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Arbuthnot, James
Hunter, Andrew


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Baldry, Tony
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bercow, John
Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Blunt, Crispin



Boswell, Tim
Key, Robert


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Browning, Mrs Angela
Leigh, Edward


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Letwin, Oliver


Burns, Simon
Lidington, David


Butterfill, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



Luff, Peter


Chope, Christopher
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Clappison, James
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
MacKay, Andrew


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Malins, Humfrey


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Mates, Michael


Curry, Rt Hon David
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Merchant, Piers


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moss, Malcolm


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Norman, Archie


Duncan, Alan
Ottaway, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Page, Richard


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Paice, James


Evans, Nigel
Paterson, Owen


Faber, David
Pickles, Eric


Fabricant, Michael
Prior, David


Fallon, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Flight, Howard
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fox, Dr Liam
Ruffley, David


Gale, Roger
St Aubyn, Nick


Garnier, Edward
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gibb, Nick
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gill, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Soames, Nicholas


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gray, James
Spicer, Sir Michael


Green, Damian
Spring, Richard


Greenway, John
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Grieve, Dominic
Steen, Anthony


Hague, Rt Hon William
Streeter, Gary


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Swayne, Desmond


Hammond, Philip
Syms, Robert


Heald, Oliver
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)






Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Temple-Morris, Peter
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Townend, John
Willetts, David


Tredinnick, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Trend, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)



Woodward, Shaun


Tyrie, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Viggers, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walter, Robert



Wardle, Charles
Tellers for the Noes:


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. John Whittingdale and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. James Cran.

Division No. 76]
[8.9 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Caton, Martin


Ainger, Nick
Cawsey, Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Allan, Richard (Shef'ld Hallam)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Church, Ms Judith


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clapham, Michael


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Ashton, Joe



Atherton, Ms Candy
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Atkins, Charlotte
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Baker, Norman
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ballard, Mrs Jackie
Clelland, David


Banks, Tony
Clwyd, Ann


Barnes, Harry
Coaker, Vernon


Barron, Kevin
Coffey, Ms Ann


Battle, John
Coleman, Iain (Hammersmith)


Bayley, Hugh
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Beard, Nigel
Cooper, Yvette


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Corbyn, Jeremy


Begg, Miss Anne (Aberd'n S)
Corston, Ms Jean


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cox, Tom


Bennett, Andrew F
Cranston, Ross


Benton, Joe
Crausby, David


Berry, Roger
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Best, Harold
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Betts, Clive
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Blizzard, Bob



Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)


Boateng, Paul



Borrow, David
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Bradshaw, Ben
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Brake, Thomas
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Breed, Colin
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dawson, Hilton



Dean, Mrs Janet


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Denham, John


Burden, Richard
Dewar, Rt Hon Donald


Butler, Christine
Dismore, Andrew


Byers, Stephen
Dobbin, Jim


Caborn, Richard
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Donohoe, Brian H


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Doran, Frank


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Dowd, Jim


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Drew, David


Caplin, Ivor
Drown, Ms Julia





Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Jowell, Ms Tessa


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keen, Mrs Ann (Brentford)


Edwards, Huw
Keetch, Paul


Ennis, Jeff
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Feam, Ronnie
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzsimons, Loma
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flint, Caroline
Lepper, David


Flynn, Paul
Levitt, Tom


Follett, Barbara
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Livingstone, Ken


Foster, Michael John (Worcester)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Fyfe, Maria
Love, Andrew


Galloway, George
McAllion, John


Gapes, Mike
McAvoy, Thomas


George, Andrew (St Ives)
McCabe, Stephen


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Gerrard, Neil
McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Macdonald, Calum


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McDonnell, John


Godman, Dr Norman A
McFall, John


Godsiff, Roger
McIsaac, Shona


Golding, Mrs Llin
McKenna, Ms Rosemary


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McLeish, Henry


Gorrie, Donald
McNulty, Tony


Grant, Bernie
MacShane, Denis


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McWalter, Tony


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McWilliam, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Grocott, Bruce
Mallaber, Judy


Gunnell, John
Marek, Dr John


Hain, Peter
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hanson, David
Martlew, Eric


Harris, Dr Evan
Maxton, John


Harvey, Nick
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Merron, Gillian


Healey, John
Michael, Alun


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Milburn, Alan


Heppell, John
Miller, Andrew


Hesford, Stephen
Moffatt, Laura


Hill, Keith
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hinchliffe, David
Moore, Michael


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoon, Geoffrey
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Hope, Phil
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hopkins, Kelvin
Morley, Elliot


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howells, Dr Kim
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mullin, Chris


Hurst, Alan
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hutton, John
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Ingram, Adam
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
O'Hara, Edward


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Olner, Bill


Jamieson, David
Öpik, Lembit


Jenkins, Brian (Tamworth)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pearson, Ian


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pendry, Tom



Perham, Ms Linda


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Pike, Peter L


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Plaskitt, James



Pond, Chris


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pound, Stephen


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)






Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Primarolo, Dawn
Stoate, Dr Howard


Prosser, Gwyn
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stringer, Graham


Quinn, Lawrie
Stuart, Ms Gisela (Edgbaston)


Rammell, Bill
Stunell, Andrew


Rapson, Syd
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Raynsford, Nick
Swinney, John


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Rooker, Jeff
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Rowlands, Ted
Timms, Stephen


Ruane, Chris
Tipping, Paddy


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Todd, Mark


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Touhig, Don


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Trickett, Jon


Salmond, Alex
Truswell, Paul


Salter, Martin
Turner, Desmond (Kemptown)


Sanders, Adrian
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Savidge, Malcolm
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sawford, Phil
Vaz, Keith


Sedgemore, Brian
Vis, Dr Rudi


Shaw, Jonathan
Wallace, James


Sheerman, Barry
Ward, Ms Claire


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Watts, David


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Webb, Professor Steve


Singh, Marsha
Welsh, Andrew


Skinner, Dennis
White, Brain


Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)
Whitehead, Dr Alan



Wills, Phil



Winnick, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wood, Mike


Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)
Wray, James


Soley, Clive
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wright, Tony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Spellar, John
Wyatt, Derek


Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stevenson, George
Mr. Greg Pope and


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Mr. Graham Allen.




NOES


Amess, David
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Duncan, Alan


Bercow, John
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beresford, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Blunt, Crispin
Evans, Nigel


Boswell, Tim
Faber, David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Fallon, Michael


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Flight, Howard


Browning, Mrs Angela
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burns, Simon
Fox, Dr Liam


Butterfill, John
Gale, Roger


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Garnier, Edward



Gibb, Nick


Chope, Christopher
Gill, Christopher


Clappison, James
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Gray, James


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Green, Damian



Greenway, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Grieve, Dominic


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hague, Rt Hon William


Cran, James
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Curry, Rt Hon David
Hammond, Philip


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Heald, Oliver





Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Ruffley, David


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hunter, Andrew
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jenkin, Bernard (N Essex)
Soames, Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Spicer, Sir Michael


Key, Robert
Spring, Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Steen, Anthony


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Swayne, Desmond


Leigh, Edward
Syms, Robert


Letwin, Oliver
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lidington, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Luff, Peter
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Tredinnick, David


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Trend, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Tyrie, Andrew


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Viggers, Peter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walter, Robert


Madel, Sir David
Wardle, Charles


Malins, Humfrey
Waterson, Nigel


Mates, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Dr Brian
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Merchant, Piers
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Nicholls, Patrick
Willetts, David


Ottaway, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Page, Richard
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Paice, James
Woodward, Shaun


Paterson, Owen
Yeo, Tim


Pickles, Eric
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Prior, David



Redwood, Rt Hon John
Tellers for the Noes:


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Mr. Malcolm Moss and


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Mr. John Whittingdale.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos 7, 10, 15 and 16 disagreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put forthwith the Question in respect to the amendments designated by Madam Speaker, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendments.

Lords amendments Nos 11, 12, 13, 14, 17 and 18 agreed to [some with Special Entry].

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords amendments.

Lords amendments Nos. 3,4,8 and 9 agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put forthwith the Question on motions made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendments.

Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 6 agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill: Dr. Liam Fox, Mr. Peter Hain, Mr. Oliver Heald, Mr. John McFall and Mr. Henry McLeish (Chairman); Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. McFall]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to certain Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

PARLIAMENTARY PRIVILEGE

Ordered,
That a Select Committee of seven Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords, as the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege, to review parliamentary privilege and make recommendations thereon;
That three be the Quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House; to report from time to time; and to appoint specialist advisers to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

MODERNISATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Ordered,
That Sir Patrick Cormack be discharged from the Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons and Mr. Richard Shepherd be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Grieve: On a point of order, Sir Alan. We have been subject to a timetable motion this evening. I understand that the purpose of such a motion is to enable the House to transact its business within a time framework that allows full discussion. In the circumstances, is it not extraordinary that we are concluding at 8.25 pm a debate on major constitutional issues that are to be put to the people of Wales and Scotland? With a sensible timetable motion, we could have debated those issues for a further hour and 35 minutes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): We have been debating the issues on the basis of a timetable motion that was agreed by the House.

Closed Circuit Television

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]

Mr. Damian Green: I am glad to have the chance to debate this topic. It has particular significance for my constituency, but it also has national significance for hon. Members in all parties, given the successful spread and use of closed circuit television schemes over the past few years.
The purpose of the debate is to elicit guarantees from the Government on two specific issues that are extremely relevant to the future success of CCTV schemes and, most important, to their spread. First, there are the guidelines for applications. Towns and other localities that wanted CCTV schemes had become used to the competitions that were organised under the last Government, but there is now some doubt about how the Government intend to proceed with those applications.
Secondly, and perhaps even more important, is the question of money—whether the Government will commit enough to allow this extremely successful form of crime prevention and deterrence to continue in the current Parliament as it did in the last. I hope that if, by the end of this short debate, the Government have made those two commitments, we can all—as Madam Speaker put it earlier today—pack our buckets and spades in a much happier frame of mind.
Tenterden, in my constituency, is a small town, which is normally peaceful. There is a good deal of civic pride and community involvement in the town, which, in many respects, is the model of a small English market town, in which worries about crime are not at the forefront of people's minds. Nevertheless, over the past decade or so, fear of crime has increased markedly in Tenterden, and, I dare say, in many towns like it throughout the country. Shops in the high street have been ram-raided, local policemen have been injured in fairly serious attacks, and there is a general feeling, particularly among the elderly, that the place is not as safe as it used to be.
Therefore, the town council, in partnership with local bodies such as the police and the local business community, has decided to apply for CCTV to be installed in the town. The council applied last year, but for various reasons it did not succeed. It is trying again, and there is a new scheme on the table for 12 cameras to cover the most important parts of the town centre. The council thinks, and I agree, that that would have a dramatic effect on crime in Tenterden.
Not only is the town council trying again, but it is trying with a will. Over the past few weeks, while it has been trying to put together the town's contribution towards the cost of the scheme, it has received 400 pledges of money from individual citizens. In less than a month, it has raised £5,000, which is half the target for personal donations. The council has promised another £10,000, and Ashford borough council has promised £35,000. The town centre group, which is organising the scheme, is confident of raising £30,000 from the town's 200 businesses. The total cost of the scheme is about £250,000.
Some unease is being caused by lack of knowledge about the bidding guidelines, and the council would like to have that matter cleared up as soon as possible.


As I have said, the council is already in the successful throes of raising money, and it would be easier to do that if it knew the exact form in which the application should be made. I appeal to the Minister to give the people of Tenterden, and no doubt those in many other places, some certainty about that. I hope that the debate can be the means by which we can move forward on that.
The people of Tenterden and I are keen to move positively on the scheme. That is evident from what is happening on the Stanhope estate in Ashford in another part of my constituency. It has had many of the problems associated with inner-city areas. There have been problems with drugs, petty crime and vandalism. In many ways, Stanhope and Tenterden are different, but the people of Tenterden and other villages can see how effective CCTV can be in an area that has had much bigger problems with crime.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I want to answer the debate as fully and as accurately as I can, but I am little puzzled. The hon. Gentleman spoke about applications from Tenterden, which I think he described as a village; perhaps it is a village—I am not sure of the exact description. I apologise for not knowing that, but the hon. Gentleman did not say that he would raise this specific topic. As far as I am aware, there has been no application from Tenterden. Perhaps he could clarify the issue, because it will be difficult to answer questions about applications if there have not been any.

Mr. Green: The town was included in a wider application by Ashford borough council. Tenterden is one of the Cinque ports, but its council is not a borough or district council. It has a town council because Tenterden has a proud history. I am surprised that the Minister knows nothing about the application, because I shall shortly quote from a letter that he sent to me on the subject.
CCTV is only part of a long-term policing initiative, and on the Stanhope estate its effects as part of a wider policing initiative are clear. Since 1993, when CCTV was introduced, recorded crime has gone down by 42 per cent., violent offences have gone down by 30 per cent., burglaries have gone down by 16 per cent., and car theft has fallen by 46 per cent. That is clear, hard evidence of the beneficial effects of that form of policing. It is not a panacea, but it helps, and, significantly, it is extremely cost effective.
There are many fixed CCTV schemes, and I hope that the Minister will agree that the next stage should be mobile schemes. My constituency, and no doubt many others, contain villages in which full-time, fixed CCTV would not be cost effective or worth while. However, specific crime hot spots would be well served by mobile systems, which could be prominently displayed as a deterrent or quietly installed to catch specific criminals.
The Minister spoke about being confused. In a letter to me dated 12 July he stated:
We are considering the future of CCTV Challenge Competitions as part of our review of existing expenditure programmes. A decision on whether there will be another round of the Competition—and if there is, what form it would take—will be made later in the summer.

It is now later in the summer, and I hope that the Minister can say when that decision will be made. The delay is slightly disheartening, because there is much evidence that many local authorities have succeeded in bids after failing the first time.
To broaden the issue from the problems in my constituency to the national picture, I should tell the House that so far there have been three competitions and that the Government have paid out more than £37 million. As a result, there are now more than 6,000 closed circuit cameras in operation, many of them doing extremely good work. I am aware that there have been some objections. In particular, it is said that CCTV infringes civil liberties and that rather than cutting crime it simply shifts it to areas that are not covered by cameras.

Mr. Philip Hammond: Perhaps I could draw my hon. Friend's attention to my constituency, which has two borough councils. Runnymede has a Conservative-controlled authority and Elmbridge is controlled by a coalition of Liberal Democrats and ratepayers.
Runnymede recently switched on a splendid CCTV scheme, which already makes a significant contribution to controlling local crime. Perhaps more importantly, it is making a significant contribution to people's perception of security as they go about their business in our town centres. By contrast, the libertarian argument to which my hon. Friend alludes has been used in Elmbridge to block progress on a scheme, and no bid was submitted to the Home Office.
My Elmbridge constituents look enviously at those in Runnymede, because of the success of the CCTV scheme there. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging authorities that have used this rather spurious libertarian argument as the basis for not applying for funds to overcome their scruples and become part of the vigorous progress towards CCTV being installed everywhere?

Mr. Green: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have said that CCTV is a nationally important issue, and he confirms it. Plainly, some people misguidedly use the libertarian argument in opposing CCTV. In support of my case, I can do no better than quote John Stevens, the former chief constable of Northumbria:
The bottom line is that law-abiding residents have nothing to be afraid of, but criminals have plenty to worry about.
The fact that criminals have plenty to worry about brings more people on to the streets and increases freedom, especially for old people and women, who might otherwise be afraid on the street.
There is clear public support for the installation of security cameras. The chief constable of Dyfed-Powys, Raymond White, has said:
We are now seeing a clear public demand for this technology … the public find CCTV systems very reassuring, second in value only to a patrolling police officer.
There are genuine success stories. I have mentioned the one in my constituency, but, throughout the country, the figures show that CCTV is a successful form of crime prevention. In Newcastle, 6,200 fewer crimes were recorded in the first four years after CCTV was installed, and in Brentwood in Essex, police crime statistics for April to October 1994 show an overall reduction in crime


of nearly 40 per cent. In Workington, crime was reduced by 50 per cent. from its level the year before, when the town did not have CCTV.
All those figures from different areas and different types of community show that CCTV is a cost-effective weapon in the fight against crime. As a result, the previous Government went into the election promising £75 million over the course of this Parliament for new CCTV schemes. Those schemes would have produced more than 10,000 new cameras, and they would have been funded through public-private partnerships. Central Government, local authorities, the police, businesses and individuals would all contribute, as they want to do in Tenterden.
That seems to me the ideal non-partisan scheme. It is widely agreed on both sides of the House. As this is an Adjournment debate, perhaps we can lower the normal temperature in the Chamber. [Laughter.] That is not difficult at the moment, with so few of us here. There are now many areas, especially those connected with law and order, in which there is some non-partisan consensus. Apart from all being against crime, we are now also all in favour of public-private partnerships, and of making every pound of public expenditure go as far as possible.
CCTV fulfils all those ideals. None the less, the Government have not yet committed themselves to maintaining the spending commitment set by the previous Government.

Mr. Michael: Nonsense.

Mr. Green: I do not understand why the Government have not done that. One does not need a review when a policy is working as well as CCTV. If the Minister is prepared to say this evening that they will now meet the spending commitments of the previous Government, I shall be the first to welcome that, and so will all the people who are looking forward to having it installed in their communities.
CCTV can help to restore the sense of community that used to prevent crime in small towns such as Tenterden. Social change now means that more people are out at work and fewer people are around. The old idea that there is always someone twitching the lace curtains to see whether there are any strangers in the road does not apply any more, and CCTV is the best substitute for that kind of gentle personal policing, which used to work.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) said, CCTV not only catches—it deters, too. No one but the most hardened or the dimmest of criminals would commit a crime if he thought he was on camera.
I should like two commitments from the Minister. First, I want him to say that he can move forward with proper guidelines to allow people to apply for the next few years, so that they know where they are, and can proceed with their applications. Secondly, I should like a commitment that the extra £75 million promised by the previous Government will be provided by the present Government.
If that does not happen, the anti-crime rhetoric of the Minister and his Front-Bench colleagues will be seen as no more than hot air. The previous Government put their

money where their mouth was, and were tough on crime. I invite the new Government to do the same, and I look forward to the Minister's doing so now.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Alun Michael): I was prepared to congratulate the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) on succeeding in obtaining the Adjournment debate and on raising the subject of closed circuit television. It is possible to have a constructive and sensible debate on that issue. For one or two sentences, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be asking for such a debate, but his request stood in stark contrast to the rather partisan nature of the rest of his contribution. As I listened to him, I wondered why he had asked for the debate, and the end of his speech I am left still wondering why he bothered. He did not seem to have much to say.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the previous Government's spending commitments on CCTV, had they won the general election. But there were no such commitments—only a last-minute attempt by the Conservative party during the run-up to the election to suggest that a Conservative Government would spend £75 million over the life of this Parliament. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman rightly characterised that promise when he said that it was not their own money that the Conservatives were promising to spend, but that of the other partners that they would draw in. That was a pretty empty promise, given that the previous Government had allowed for one further round for next year and nothing more during the forward planning for Home Office spending during the remainder of this Parliament.
The hon. Member said that he wanted to elicit guarantees from this Government, and he asked for commitments. I suggest to him that he should have used his influence as a prospective parliamentary candidate in a seat likely to remain Conservative—even in the event of a landslide such as we have experienced—to persuade the then Government to pursue the policies for which he is asking. The Conservatives neither planned nor gave the sort of guarantee he is seeking tonight. It is interesting that a Conservative is willing to stand up in opposition to call for something that the Conservatives in government were not prepared to provide.
The development of CCTV depends not just on the Government putting up money, but on commitments from different organisations. During the past few years, I have visited many constituencies—controlled by local authorities of all political persuasions—and I have seen a number of places where CCTV has been installed with great success. Those concerned have not waited for Government money. Many Labour authorities in particular have, in partnership with business and the police, put money into local areas to ensure that CCTV is used to prevent and reduce crime.
Early in my parliamentary career, I spent an evening in the centre of Cardiff with the police and saw the problems that they had in attempting to deal with disorder with a very thin blue line. Local councils readily agreed to allow the police access to the cameras they had installed, primarily for traffic purposes, so that the police could deploy their limited powers in the best places to alert themselves in advance to where things were going wrong. That system was added to over the years and is an


example—among many—of a Labour authority recognising the problems of local people and trying to tackle them.
The hon. Member referred to a scheme costing some £250,000, although he amended his remarks to say that it is contained within a more general scheme. That may be why the scheme was not immediately recognisable and why the town to which he referred was not identifiable within the list that I had taken the trouble to brief myself on. If he had written to ask for guidelines and information on what we intended to do, we could have answered his questions. We are examining the situation, given the very limited nature of the financial commitment to CCTV that we inherited from the previous Government within a difficult financial situation.
We intend to target resources as effectively as possible. I wish to underline the fact that many CCTV cameras were installed not just as a result of a bidding process to the Government—important though that was—but because local authorities have taken initiatives. In my town of Penarth, local businesses and I approached local authorities and were succesful in the last bidding round. The initiative can come from the local Member of Parliament, the local authority or business.
The hon. Member referred to Northumbria and to the previous chief constable John Stevens, now a member of the inspectorate. During his leadership, positive partnerships were developed between the police and local authorities to target crime. By that reference, he gives me an opportunity to commend the fact that considerable improvements have occurred in Northumbria's crime figures as a result of the partnership approach. That is something that we intend to build upon during the coming years, both in terms of encouraging the police and local authorities into a partnership approach and within the provisions of the crime and disorder Bill.
The hon. Gentleman referred to civil liberties. I share the concern that sometimes there is all too readily seen the downside of CCTV. The question is not whether CCTV is a magic wand that can suddenly make crime disappear but how it, with other measures to tackle and prevent crime while increasing public confidence, will work effectively in any given area. The use of CCTV must be carefully integrated within the approach of the police, local authorities and general communities, including business communities, if it is to be effective.
I have seen some examples where CCTV has been introduced without adequate thought and planning, with the result that partners have not been brought together. These are instances where the system has been less effective than its full potential. In some instances, an area has been covered by CCTV without consideration being given to displacement and the need to pull things together.
There was an example where in one town centre the privately owned precinct had chosen not to opt into the system. The result was the generality of the town covered by CCTV—a system that the local authority had worked for and designed with the police—with a sort of black hole in the middle. That was the result of one of the partners being missing. That is worrying and we would encourage the strongest possible partnership with local authorities.
We must make every effort to avoid the displacement problems to which the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) referred. Public-private

partnerships are basic. On that I could agree with the hon. Member for Ashford in his content if not his tone. I remind him that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister was one of the earliest proponents of effective public-private partnerships.
In my background in local government I saw the redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff, which transformed it into a thriving and effective city centre worthy of the capital of Wales. That ensued because local authorities and the private sector came together effectively. There are other such examples in many places.
The hon. Member for Ashford has raised an important issue albeit in a slightly muddled way. I know that the CCTV systems in his constituency are well regarded and that Ashford was one of the first beneficiaries of the Home Office's CCTV challenge competition. The town was successful in the initial competition and the main town centre system went live in 1995. The initiating partnership is an example of the good practice that we want to see developed in other areas.
The local authority, the police, local business, including retailers, and the South-Kent hospital trust were fully involved. The good work bore fruit immediately. In the first year, there was a 20 per cent. reduction in thefts from motor vehicles, a 28 per cent. reductions in thefts of motor vehicles and a 13 per cent. reduction in assaults. I understand that recently the local police reported a 30 per cent. reduction overall in crime in Ashford town centre and a 42 per cent. reduction within a local housing estate. The police consider that these reductions are at least partly attributable to the introduction of CCTV.
Ashford is not unique in these respects, although it is unique in being represented by the hon. Gentleman, but all towns have to have something to make them unique. Many towns and cities throughout the country have seen reductions in crime, and sometimes large ones, as a result of CCTV systems being properly installed, planned and integrated within a partnership approach. I emphasise that CCTV is not a magic wand or a panacea. However, to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge in an intervention, it is popular.
The advantages of CCTV, properly managed, speak for themselves: crime prevention, the deterrent effect of knowing that there is observation, the alerting of police at an early stage to stop dangerous situations escalating, the operational assistance to the police in sizing up a situation, the safer convictions that can be obtained—the savings in court time can be enormous—and, above all, the fact that people's confidence is renewed, which has led to many town centres being revitalised. Vulnerable groups in particular feel the advantage.
In the minutes before the bomb exploded in Manchester, the police were greatly assisted by traffic cameras which allowed them to see at a glance where the public were, so the evacuation of the city centre could be centrally directed and people could be moved out of the area quickly and efficiently.
I also agree with the hon. Member for Ashford that mobile cameras can be useful, if deployed with care, not as a magic wand but as part of a well-targeted approach. I presented awards to special constables recently. One of them was to special constables in the Weymouth area, where CCTV images had been shown to parents to let them know what their children had been up to, which is


again a useful form of evidence and can discourage youngsters from taking part in illegal activities. Often, parents find it difficult to believe what youngsters are up to, so the evidence can help.
CCTV has a great deal going for it. On civil liberties and codes of practice, the previous Government rightly set as a condition for a CCTV grant that there would need to be a code of conduct. There is a need for a code of conduct to underpin all use of CCTV. There have been a few examples of abuse, such as the discredited video, "Caught in the Act", which caused immense public anger. I am happy to reinforce the message expressed by hon. Members of all parties at that time: CCTV images should be used only for crime prevention and reduction and as evidence; they should not be used for entertainment or titillation, as we do not want public confidence to be undermined.
A couple of years ago, I launched the local government information unit's publication, "CCTV—A Watching Brief', which was designed to help the development of suitable codes of practice. Where such codes have been adopted, they have operated well. In the longer term, we are considering a statutory underpinning to ensure that a few cowboys misusing the available film do not undermine public confidence.
I stress that, as I said in the letter to which the hon. Member for Ashford referred, we are reviewing existing expenditure programmes and reassessing priorities to ensure that the best use is made of the available resources. In response to a question from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray), I said:
It is only sensible for an incoming Government to undertake a comprehensive review of expenditure and of the way in which resources are used. It is in that context that we are examining how we use the money available for CCTV."—[Official Report, 7 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 605.]
I was referring to the money set aside by the previous Government for CCTV in 1998–99.
I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the fact that the previous Government made provision only for 1998–99. They made none for the years after that, despite the extravagance of their promises and claims during the general election campaign. It is amazing how a general election concentrates the minds of the sort of Governments that we have had for the past 18 years.

Mr. Green: For all that the Minister says that the money was only there for 1998–99, am I right in believing that he is giving no guarantee that that money will still be there in 1998–99?

Mr. Michael: I am saying exactly what I have said to the hon. Gentleman previously—that we are undertaking a comprehensive expenditure review and considering the best use of the resources available. The Conservative Government failed to make provision for the extravagant

promises that they made in the build-up to the general election. He is now a Back-Bench Member of a party which lost the election by making extravagant promises when it was too late. Despite the rhetoric of the Conservative party about its commitment to CCTV, it made no provision in government for CCTV after next year.
My aim is to achieve our commitment to tackle crime and its causes comprehensively. We have to do that within the resources that have been left to us. We shall do it in a way that is in the best interests of the country as a whole. I shall not make any further commitments at this stage other than to say, as I have said before to the House, and as the hon. Gentleman quoted me in a letter as saying, that I shall announce my decision on the future of CCTV funding later in the summer.
Even if we had the money that was promised during the general election campaign by the Conservative party, but not by the Conservative Government, it would not meet the demand for CCTV across the country from the public and others. There is a responsibility in local areas for local bodies—that means everyone, certainly the police and the local authority as well as the local community, including the local business community—to consider what can be done to contain, prevent and reduce crime. Where CCTV is needed as part of a comprehensive package to meet the needs of an area, the possibility of government assistance will be dealt with when we make the announcement that I have promised in a parliamentary answer and in my letter to the hon. Gentleman.
There certainly will not be enough money to provide all the schemes that imagination and need could project. That was certainly the case under the previous Government, because many schemes were: lot funded, although many went ahead because the local authority and the community moved things forward. So it would not be sensible for any area to depend on the possibility of Government money.
If there is a further bidding round, we shall consider applications objectively and as carefully as possible. Our announcement will suggest the ground rules and we shall answer the detailed questions on which the hon. Gentleman said that he would like guidance. We shall make the position clear when we make a statement about the way forward, but that should not be the be-all and end-all. It should not be the end of consideration of how to meet the problems of crime in a local area. Nor should the possibility that Government money is available to help. Government money will not meet the whole of the bill in any event.
Questions about whether Government money will be available to help in a particular area should not discourage local authorities from considering how they can use CCTV and other tried and proved methods in a properly integrated way to deal with the specific crime problems of the area.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past Nine o ' clock.